From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Mon Apr 01 2002 - 19:07:31 PST
Aron Wall <aron_at_wall.org> writes: > It is one thing to create an imaginary object not yet discussed to date; it is > another thing to refer to non-existant attributes of previous rules. Let us return to the reinterpreted rule in question: A rule containing the word Splitsplotsplinksplonk shall never have its description [The bracketed one] after it. Nothing in this rule or any other rule asserts that every rule must have a description or that such a description, if it exists, must be a part of the rule it describes. That being the case, it's a misinterpretation to insist that this rule refers to a "non-existent attribute of previous rules". And so what if it does? Referring to non-existent objects is not in itself inconsistent. To say Rule descriptions do not exist. All future rules must include a rule description. certainly *is* inconsistent. But Rule descriptions do not exist. No future rules may include a rule description. is not. Finally, and I hesitate to point this out because it reveals what might be regarded as a weakness in my rule, the above reinterpreted rule is ambiguous, because the pronouns "its" and "it" have two valid possibilities for their antecedents: "A rule" and "the word Splitsplotsplinksplonk". We both have assumed the first, applied to both pronouns, but the second, applied to both pronouns *or* just to "its", is grammatically and syntactically plausible; to make it more explicit, under these two interpretations the rule can be reworded A rule containing the word Splitsplotsplinksplonk shall never have the word Splitsplotsplinksplonk's description [The bracketed one] after the word Splitsplotsplinksplonk. or A rule containing the word Splitsplotsplinksplonk shall never have the word Splitsplotsplinksplonk's description [The bracketed one] after the rule. Given that the word Splitsplotsplinksplonk does indeed have a bracketed description, this provides an interpretation of the reinterpreted rule that does not refer to "non-existent attributes of previous rules" and is, I believe, entirely consistent with all rules and ROs. So even if 180:4 leads to an inconsistency using the first interpretation -- and I do not believe the Judge has demonstrated that -- that claimed inconsistency does not exist under a different, equally possible interpretation of the reinterpreted 180:2. Therefore 180:4 should be VALID. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY -- Rule Date: 2002-04-02 03:07:55 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST