From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 11:18:41 PDT
Richard S. Holmes wrote: > > The Judge has belatedly realized that in his concern over whether the > second half of the second sentence of the last paragraph is or is not > consistent with the ROs, he has overlooked a problem with the first > half. Namely: This rule attempts to redefine the criteria by which a > rule is *initially* declared VALID, and that *is* inconsistent with > RO6. Was this after reading 185:2? If so, I'm pleased that this point came through. (The other point of the rule was an exploration of how a rule could possibly fulfill the definition in 185:1. How can a statement made in a rule have a demonstrable impact on someone's style? Why, it would almost always have to be affecting the style of its own author. Anyway, it was fun to toy with how to bring this out.) -Jesse -- Rule Date: 2002-05-30 18:18:54 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST