From: Leonhard, Christian (Christian_Leonhard_at_ADP.com)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 08:18:13 PST
Jesse Welton wrote: > If 196:3 requires all rules (as opposed to all > future rules) to be shorter than those before them, You almost persuaded me here, but 196:3 actually reads "I recommend that we should [...] make all eulogies shorter than those before them." The "we should do" construction, in my mind, clearly renders this an implicit mandate for future behavior (as constrasted with a claim that "all rules must be shorter than all previous rules"). It is ambiguous, I will grant you, but isn't it customary to grant rules leniency in interpretation, where possible? Christian -----Original Message----- From: Jesse Welton [mailto:jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 11:08 AM To: frc_at_trolltech.com Subject: Re: Proposal 196:G "Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)" wrote: > > I really hate to throw yet another proposal out there, but I feel I need > to establish this precedent with regards to the requirement of 196:3. > 196:3 states: "make all eulogies shorter than those before them". Since it > doesn't state the all eulogies must be shorter than the one eulogy > immediately before it, we must assume that the eulogy must be shorter than > the combination of ALL eulogies that came before it. This seems like an extremely forced reading to me. It's like saying that I'm shorter than my parents, because their combined height is greater than mine. > Below, I've provided a character count of all of the rules up to and > including 196:8. Carriage returns have been treated as a character for > this count. > > 196:1 - 462 > 196:2 - 1016 > 196:3 - 438 Hmm, this brings up another issue, though: In what way is 196:2 shorter than 196:1? If 196:3 requires all rules (as opposed to all future rules) to be shorter than those before them, then for 196:3 to be valid, 196:2 must be shorter than 196:1. If there is no identifiable way in which 196:2 is shorter than 196:1, one solution is to treat 196:3's suggestion as non-binding. Another is, as Alan suggested, to apply the restriction strictly to the eulogistic portion of each rule. -Jesse -- Rule Date: 2002-11-15 16:08:37 GMT _______________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- Rule Date: 2002-11-15 16:18:37 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST