Re: 197:4

From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 26 2002 - 14:46:35 PST


Richard S. Holmes wrote:
> 
> "Leonhard, Christian" <Christian_Leonhard_at_ADP.com> writes:
> 
> > > Doesn't propose a new rule.
> > 
> > This rule's requirement was meant to be implicit: that each box contain
> > further boxes, each with a longer name than the last.
> 
> Hmm, if *I* were the judge, I would have said this requirement was so
> implicit as to be without force, and would have docked a style point
> or so for not imposing a restriction.
> 
> But imposing a restriction isn't required for validity.
> 
> And I'm not the judge...

I agree fully on all points.  And, I daresay Judge Nathan implicitly
agrees with the first point, as he judged 197:5 to be VALID, despite
the fact that it clearly contradicts the notion that each box must
contain further boxes.

-Jesse

-- 
Rule Date: 2002-11-26 22:46:53 GMT


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