Re: Judgement 178:7 INVALID 0

From: Karl Low (gurugreat_at_hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Mar 02 2002 - 15:26:39 PST


Point 1: The rule does not restrict bad puns from occuring before, it just
says there haven't been any, is being wrong equivalent to making the ruleset
inconsistent?

Point 2: Which VALID rule (since those are the only ones we are concerned
about for the ruleset) has the bad pun?  I would suggest that given a
liberal interpretation of the rules (which is what is required) then "cowed"
as it has been used is not a bad pun.  If a pun at all, it's actually a good
one since the language doesn't have to be altered to make it work (such as
my "herd" or "udder-wise")



>From: Aron Wall <aron_at_wall.org>
>To: frc_at_trolltech.com
>Subject: Judgement 178:7 INVALID 0
>Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 12:33:52 -0700
>
>Karl Low wrote:
>
> > I'm amazed we've herd no bad puns up til now. A good thing too, I
>assume,
> > udder-wise I could see people really milking it. Let's keep it that way.
> >
> > --
> > Rule Date: 2002-02-28 09:28:17 GMT
>
>INVALID.  I'm sorry, but the statement that there have been no bad puns
>until
>now is inconsistant with the rules to date.
>
>Style: 0
>
>The Wizard
>
>--
>Rule Date: 2002-03-02 19:33:52 GMT


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

--
Rule Date: 2002-03-02 23:27:01 GMT


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