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