From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Thu Mar 28 2002 - 12:11:05 PST
Ed Murphy wrote: > Having encountered fyaphic words and splitsplotsplinksplonks, it is only > natural that we should next run across [words containing the letter "z"] > zwammerbunds, whose proposed descriptions [the bracketed ones] shall always > precede them. > > The next rule shall re-interpret at least one fyaphic word. > > -- > Rule Date: 2002-03-28 08:05:31 GMT VALID. I wonder what it means for a non-fyaphic word to be required to have its proposed description preceding it? Copies the last rule too much for no good reason. Is the location of brackets that clever of a restriction? (-2) But at least this rule forces the next one to actually do some reinterpretation. (+1) Still, two out of the three words will not do anything exciting at all if reinterpreted. Total: -1 P.S. If the next rule says that all puingwitters must have their brackets located three words to the left of them or anything even remotely like that, it shall recieve -3 style on the spot. Do something else. The Judge -- Rule Date: 2002-03-28 20:10:44 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST