On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:09 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:56 AM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> But if the Terre Haute is "the Terre Haute", then it is a string, >>> which exists independently of the contract, so the contract cannot >>> make it an asset. >> >> Wait, that doesn't follow. "The Terre Haute" was defined to be the >> *name* of the asset, not the asset itself. If you are claiming that >> the string of characters actually becomes the asset, then you need to >> justify why that happens. > > Because if Rochelle O'Shea owns an asset, the Terre Haute is the name > of that asset.
But that in no way identifies the nature of that asset. The fact that its name is "the Terre Haute" does not mean that the asset is the string of characters itself. My name is "root". That does not make me the string "root". -root
