Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0

From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: Sun Oct 21 2001 - 22:25:14 PDT

Next message: Factitious: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
Previous message: Factitious: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
In reply to: David Glasser: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
Next in thread: Factitious: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
Reply: Factitious: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

David Glasser <me_at_davidglasser.net> wrote:

> I disagree.  This rule does not name a spell, so it falls prey to FRC
> error #1.

As "Factitious" <x40_at_pacbell.net> has pointed out, it names the "Elemental
Blast" spell.  My ruling of VALID stands.

--
Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

--
Rule Date: 2001-10-22 05:27:07 GMT

Next message: Factitious: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
Previous message: Factitious: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
In reply to: David Glasser: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
Next in thread: Factitious: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
Reply: Factitious: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST