From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2001 - 09:46:22 PDT
Anton Cox <A.G.Cox_at_city.ac.uk> writes:
> On 3 Oct 2001, Richard S. Holmes wrote:
>
> > > My copy of the board does not have any such list. Since this copy was
> > > sent out *in* a rule it does have game status - so I dont see how Aron
> > > can claim that it started out in the form he describes.
> >
> > The number of turns taken is listed on the *side* of the board. The
> > picture shows the *top* of the board...
>
> I was not just sent a *picture* of the board, but a *copy* of it. Rule
> 169:1 does not say that I was sent a copy of part of it (the top
> only). A picture of something can lack some visual information
> contained in that object, but I dont think that a copy can.
Rule 169:1 does *not* say the attachment is an exact replica of the
board in all its details. A "copy" need not be identical. Copies of
things are often missing details present in the original.
And not only is the attachment not described as an exact replica of
Alan's board; it isn't described at all! In particular, nothing in
the rule stipulates that the "copy" we "hopefully" all have is in fact
the attachment. (In my case it certainly isn't; I was unable to open
the attachment and had to use the unofficial version posted to the
web.)
> "hopefully you will all have copies of the board and so you will
> know what is going on."
>
> I dont think that the "hopefully" modified can be reasonably attached
> to anything other than the state of ownership of a copy (ie the quote
> is of the form "(hopefully X) and so Y"). I do have a copy of the
> board, and thus by the rest of the quote "I will know what is going
> on."
Two points:
(1) I disagree; I think it can be equally reasonably interpreted as
"hopefully (X and so Y)".
(2) If you are now alleging that "you will know what is going on" is a
binding restriction on future rules, then nearly all rules should
have been judged INVALID since they provided information about
"what is going on" which was not evident by mere possession of a
copy of the board. Most especially, the Judge emphasized the
mysterious nature of the gust of wind that came up several rules
back. Clearly he (and we) did not "know what is going on".
But that takes us back to (1), in which I claim there's a
reasonable interpretation of 169:1 in which "knowing what is going
on" is not a requirement binding on the players, but merely an
expressed hope.
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2001-10-03 16:46:30 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST