On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 6:09 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > It seems to me the contract is basically unenforceable. R1742, which >> > requires its parties to adhere to it, has lower power than Rule 105, >> > which restricts the ways by which entities can become rules. >> Nonsense. The contract just requires that we *pretend* that it's a >> rule, something regulated by no rule except R2149. > I believe you've just violated the contract. Admitting that you're > only pretending it's a rule is clearly not acting "as if [it] were a > rule".
Surely, we can simultaneously believe a legal fiction and admit that it's a legal fiction? At least before breakfast. -G.
