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