From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Mon Apr 01 2002 - 20:19:50 PST
Tieka wrote: > Even though there are only 5 splitsplotsplinksplonks, there can be many wamm > words [fyaphic words contained within a splitsplotsplinksplonk]. For example > the splitsplotsplinksplonk zwammerbund contains the word wamm and the > splitsplotsplinksplonk gluaddific contains two wamms. > > Fortunetly, it is quite easy to recognize wamm words, as their proposed > meanings always follow them. > > In order to further educate the fyaphic scholars of this list, the next rule > must describe a new splitsplotsplinksplonk and list some of the wamms that > are contained within it. > > ----------- > > -- > Rule Date: 2002-03-30 15:16:14 GMT Welcome to the game, Tieka. Unfortunately, since both 180:4 and 180:4 are INVALID, it falls upon this rule to redefine a fyaphic word. This it does not do. Therefore this rule is INVALID. Style: +1 as a traditional bonus to a first rule. You have about a day left to post a VALID rule before you become ineligible. The Judge -- Rule Date: 2002-04-02 04:19:25 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST