On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 19:16 -0500, Pavitra wrote: > On 08/08/2011 06:56 PM, ais523 wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 16:50 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> I CFJ on the following: > >> Agora's right to participate in the fora is substantially limited. > > > > Wow, my mind's mental concept of Spivak seems to rebel at using "e" to > > refer to Agora. Presumably it's not just genderless, but implies nothing > > about intelligence or sentience, either. > > I agree with the narrower usage. We usually reserve 'e' for first-class > persons, and use 'it' for second-class persons.
I'm fine with 'e' for personlike persons. Agora doesn't act like a person at all, though, it's a game. (Strangely, I'd be fine with 'e' for the projection of another nomic into Agora, such as the PNP was, so long as it was equipped with a reasonable way to act. It's just seeing it applied to Agora itself that confuses me; I can't really visualise a game playing itself.) -- ais523
