From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Mon Apr 01 2002 - 04:54:02 PST
Aron Wall <aron_at_wall.org> writes: > It was late last night when I issued that judgement, so I probably didn't > explain my reasoning very well. I fully agree with your statement that > rule 180:2 becomes: > > "A rule containing the word Splitsplotsplinksplonk shall never have its > description [The bracketed one] after it." > > However, this seems to imply the existance of some object called the > description of a rule [the one in brackets] that cannot precede the rule. > The use of the definite article and the specification that the bracketed > description is meant both seem to indicate to me that this bracketed > description of a rule actually exists, at least for rules 2, 3, & 4. > However I do not see that this is the case. If I'm missing something and > there is such a thing as the description of each of these rules that makes > sense, please tell me. Thank you for the clarification. You're right, this makes it considerably clearer what you are objecting to. I still don't understand why you find it objectionable, however. The fact that the bracketed description of a rule is neither described nor demonstrated by the preceding rules is no reason to suppose such a thing does not exist. Would you invalidate the first rule of a round if it stated No future rule shall mention the purple cow on the grounds that the purple cow's existence had not been established first? -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY -- Rule Date: 2002-04-01 12:54:17 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST