On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 14:08 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, comex wrote: >>> It's not a scam (ttPF!). Nor do I think ais523's pronoun argument is >>> very convincing-- the referent is clear. I suppose it'll fail now-- >>> good for me now that I realize the Vote Market might force me to >>> create large amounts of Rests. >> >> Er, scam aside, did I miss the legitimate context under which anyone >> *would* create Rests in eir own possession? I might not have looked >> so hard for a scam if I'd know there was an intended reason. -Goethe >> > Because they were forced to by a contract. The intent of the contract, > AFAICT, was to allow contracts to specify punishments in Rests which > would apply to people breaking them (i.e. wording like "Do this, or > anyone CAN act on your behalf to cause you to create rests").
Ah. If you mean to merge the criminal and equity courts, you should just come out and say that a "judge of an equity court can create rests" and rather than using this backhanded method. The scam is fairly real (not that "eir" thing) though not a slam-dunk and it needs the right balance of conspirators to make it profitable; fairly sure at this point that comex didn't plan it though e's better placed to use it than (for example) me; still trying to decide whether to wait for the proposal results and try it myself ;). -Goethe
