From: Joshua (j3b4_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Sep 02 2002 - 21:32:59 PDT
ROUND 192 IS OVER. AND WITH IT'S PASSING SO ENDS THE FANTASY RULES
COMMITTEE. AS SOLE INTERPRETER OF THE REGULAR ORDINANCES I HEREBY
INTERPRET THEM TO ALL BE PROVISIONAL AND DERIVED ONLY OF THE AUTHORITY
OF THE JUDGE. FURTHERMORE I HEREBY REINTERPRET THE POSITION FORMERLY
KNOW AS THE JUDGE TO BE CALLED GLOBAL OPERATIVES DIRECTOR (G.O.D. )
(DIRECTEUR l'OPERATIONS GLOBALE in French). AS GOD (DOG) OF THE
FANTASY RULES COMMITTEE I HEREBY EXEMPT MYSELF FROM JUDGING DUTIES.
ACCORDING TO MY OWN WHIM AND UNINFLUENCED BY ANY OBSOLETE "ORDINCANCES"
I HEREBY APPOINT Mary Kuhner TO BE MY VICEROY TO JUDGE YOU ON MY
BEHALF. IF VICEROY IS TOO HARD TO PRONOUNCE (and don't ask me!) YOU
MAY CALL HER THE JUDGE.
FURTHERMORE SOLEY AS A REWARD FOR HIS DEVOTED LOYALTY AND WITHOUT ANY
REGARD TO HIS SO CALLED "STYLE", I MAKE Galivanting Tripper MY
CELESTIAL COURT JESTER - THAT'S "WIZARD" TO YOU MORTALS.
THE FOLLOWING ROUND SUMMARY IS HERE AS AN HISTORICAL ARTIFACT ONLY:
RULES
192:0 START 2002-08-21 03:20:33 GMT
192:1 Henry Towsner 2002-08-21 03:47:20 GMT VALID +1.5
192:2 Andre Engels 2002-08-21 14:03:21 GMT VALID +1.0
192:3 Rich Holmes 2002-08-21 15:30:47 GMT VALID +1.0
192:4 Ed Murphy 2002-08-22 05:41:01 GMT VALID +2.0
192:5 G. Tripper 2002-08-22 11:34:05 GMT VALID +2.5
192:6 Mary Kuhner 2002-08-22 19:39:00 GMT VALID +2.0
192.7 G. Tripper 2002-08-27 15:09:08 GMT INVALID +3.0
192.8 Henry Towsner 2002-08-27 17:37:11 GMT INVALID +1.0
192.9 the Judge 2002-08-28 14:25:13 GMT UNSUCCESSFUL
ELIGIBILITY
Mary Kuhner 2002-08-29 19:39:00 GMT
Ed Murphy 2002-08-29 05:41:01 GMT
Rich Holmes 2002-08-28 15:30:47 GMT
Andre Engels 2002-08-28 14:03:21 GMT
G. Tripper 2002-08-28 11:34:05 GMT
Everyone else 2002-08-28 03:20:33 GMT
Henry P Towsner 2002-08-27 03:47:20 GMT
the Judge NEVER ! DONT EVEN ASK, BURN IN HELL!
--- Joshua <j3b4_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> 192 Round Summary.
> (Imperial Disclaimer: Just because we're posting these statistics in
> no
> way indicates that we endorese this outdated system and method of
> determining the winner of the round.)
>
> RULES
> 192:0 START 2002-08-21 03:20:33 GMT
> 192:1 Henry P Towsner 2002-08-21 03:47:20 GMT VALID +1.5
> 192:2 Andre Engels 2002-08-21 14:03:21 GMT VALID +1.0
> 192:3 Rich Holmes 2002-08-21 15:30:47 GMT VALID +1.0
> 192:4 Ed Murphy 2002-08-22 05:41:01 GMT VALID +2.0
> 192:5 G. Tripper 2002-08-22 11:34:05 GMT VALID +2.5
> 192:6 Mary Kuhner 2002-08-22 19:39:00 GMT VALID +2.0
>
> ELIGIBILITY
> Mary Kuhner 2002-08-29 19:39:00 GMT
> G. Tripper 2002-08-29 11:34:05 GMT
> Ed Murphy 2002-08-29 05:41:01 GMT
> Rich Holmes 2002-08-28 15:30:47 GMT
> Andre Engels 2002-08-28 14:03:21 GMT
> Henry P Towsner 2002-08-28 03:47:20 GMT
> Everyone else 2002-08-28 03:20:33 GMT
>
> Mary Kuhner is next in line for my job at this time and Galivanting
> is
> the prospective Wizard.
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
>
> Post your ad for free now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-08-27 04:55:26 GMT
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Subject: ROUND 192 : Hybris
To: frc_at_trolltech.com
During my short term of not being a judge I had time to ponder a truly
important question. Why should I be penalized for winning the previous
round by not being allowed to win the next? I hate not winning - even
if I'm not competing. Given the collective brilliance of the members
of this committe and the superior brilliance that logically must belong
to anyone appointed judge, it should be elementary to find a way to
solve this problem.
Therefore the theme of round 192 is:
Conditions under which the Judge (that's me!) could be declared winner
of the round!
The round starts when this messages is time-stamped by the server.
--
Rule Date: 2002-08-21 03:20:33 GMT
**************
--- Henry P Towsner <htowsner_at_stanford.edu> wrote:
> Memo 192:1
>
> From: H. Towsner, Associate Counsel for Stuff
> To: All FRC Legal Counsel
> Re: Hubris
>
> This memo shall serve as notice that the members of the FRC Legal
> Counsel staff have been asked to find a method by which Judge Joshua
> can
> remain in power for another round. It is the opinion of this
> employee
> that one possible route, that of having no player post a rule, has
> been
> ruled out by sending this memo.
> In keeping with this request, all memos should offer the opinion
> of a different staff member of the FRC Legal Counsel on the viability
> of
> this request, or a method for accomplishing it.
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-08-21 03:47:20 GMT
VALID
Style: +2.0 for professionalism, +1.0 for a good first restriction.
-1.5 for posting at all and wrecking my brilliant scheme!
It is clear that the weasely little Towsner is after my job! I'm not
going to give in so easily. To be sure it appears my hands are tied by
the regular ordinances but I've flouted them before and be sure I will
do so again if I have to. In the meantime I'm content wait and see how
the chips lie when all the dice have crumbled.
**************
192.2
--- Andre Engels <engels_at_uni-koblenz.de> wrote:
> From: A. Engels, Temporary Assistant Associate Counsel for
> Near-nonsense
> To: All FRC Legal Councel
> Re: Request
>
> I have thought of one good way for Judge Joshua to remain in power;
> however,
> it does require the help of an accomplice. Joshua should resign
> judgeship in
> favor of his accomplice, then post a Rule. Next the accomplice
> resigns in
> favor of Joshua, Joshua declares his own Rule VALID, and waits till
> as short
> as possible before the time that there would be only one legal player
> left,
> and then resign again in favor of his accomplice.
>
> Of course this would fail if a player would post a rule after Joshua
> had
> stepped down the second time - it would then have to be judged by his
> accomplice, and we cannot claim that Joshua 'remains' in power, just
> that
> he returns to power. It also has the disadvantage of requiring an
> accomplice,
> as well as some tricky timing.
>
> From now on, anyone providing a new method for Judge Joshua to remain
> in
> power for another round should also explicitly mention at least one
> of the
> disadvantages of the method proposed.
>
> Andre Engels
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-08-21 14:03:21 GMT
VALID
Style 1.0
+2.0 for making a suggestion convoluted enough to be nearly
incomprehensible - a sure sign of legal competance. -1 for not
deciding once and for all how to spell councel or is it counsel?
Pesonally I'm not sure how to estimate the character of this Engels
chap. I knew from the begining of my ambitous campaign that all would
either be fore me or against me. Engels however, tries to walk the
line. On one hand he could be exhorting the counsellors to apply
rigorous self criticism and thus improve the quality of their advice.
On the other foot it might be a method of sabotaging all further
schemes. Will I be paralysed by this kind of double speak? Only space
will tell.
**************
Subject: Re: 192:3 VALID +1
To: "Richard S. Holmes" <rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu>, frc_at_trolltech.com
--- "Richard S. Holmes" <rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu> wrote:
> From: R. Holmes, Assistant Associate Assessor, Assyria Office
> To: All FRC Legal Counsel
> Re: Request
>
> RO5 reads
>
> 5. End of Game. If at any time after the seventh day of a round,
> there is only one person eligible to play, then
> (a) all current fantasy rules are repealed
> (b) the round ends
> (c) the sole remaining player is declared winner of the just
> ended round and becomes Judge.
>
> Mr Towsner has already pointed out that the above condition would
> fail
> to be met if no rules were to be posted. It should be noted,
> however,
> that if no *valid* rules were to be posted, the win condition
> likewise
> would not occur. Rules 192:1 and 192:2 have already been ruled
> VALID;
> however, precedent suggests that said rulings can be changed within a
> three (3) day time window. This time window still is open. If the
> Judge were to change eir rulings on 192:1 and 192:2, and rule this
> and
> all future rules INVALID, e could arguably retain power.
>
> Unfortunately the ROs do not specify this. There is no specific
> regulation relating to the consequences of all players becoming
> ineligible at or before the end of the first week, and a logical
> (though unpleasant) argument could be made that in such a case, the
> present round never ends and FRC ceases to function. Presumably a
> Proposal would be required to settle the question, and of course the
> outcome of such a Proposal would not be guaranteed.
>
> Legal staff are reminded that in future each memo must quote at least
> one full sentence or clause from the ROs in support of its argument.
> --
> - Rich Holmes
> Syracuse, NY
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-08-21 15:30:47 GMT
VALID +1.0
The more I read the more I become convinced of a horrible certainty.
These so called counsellors are little more than cohorts in a vicious
and cowardly conspiracy to deprive me of the honors that so rightfully
belong to me as a reward for my brilliance. They pretend to be
building a case for me, yet they undermine my position at every turn.
Notice how good naturedly each advisor responds to eachother's
suggestions and how gently they remind eachother of alltogether trivial
restrictions on their proffessional practice. Bah! At this rate they
will all be eligible for eternity thus depriving me of my next victory
forever!
**************
Subject: Re: 192:4 VALID +2.0
To: "FRC" <frc_at_trolltech.com>
--- Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com> wrote:
> From: E. Murphy, Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
> To: All FRC Legal Counsel, Including Myself
> Re: Request
>
> As noted by 192:3, R05 reads
>
> 5. End of Game. If at any time after the seventh day of a round,
> there is only one person eligible to play, then
> (a) all current fantasy rules are repealed
> (b) the round ends
> (c) the sole remaining player is declared winner of the just
> ended round and becomes Judge.
>
> If the Judge were to resign, and then all players except for the old
> and
> new Judges were to resign from FRC, then 5(c) would trigger with the
> old
> Judge as its target. However, this plan - like the plan described by
> 192:2 - must happen within the first week, or else the old Judge will
> miss eir chance at first-week automatic eligibility (R03).
>
> The red tape is getting worse! Each future rule shall explicitly
> refer
> to at least two Regular Ordinances, and at least two previous rules.
>
>
> --
> Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com> "I'm not sure I can go
> through
> http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/ with it. Leave, I
> mean."
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-08-22 05:41:01 GMT
VALID +2
This is by far the worst proposal I've heard yet. Its pure
ridiculousness completely turns my stomach. And yet the spirit in
which it is written indicates the sentiment I had so sincerely hoped to
inspire in all of my little committee members. It is clear by the
treacherous red tape restriction that he intends to make life difficult
for all of my enemies.
**************
Subject: Re: 192:5 VALID +2.5
To: "FRC" <frc_at_trolltech.com>
--- Gallivanting Tripper <tripper_at_zad.att.ne.jp> wrote:
> From: G. Tripper, RO H&S Advocate
> To: All FRC Legal Counsel
> Re: Substance Abuse
>
> Gentlement, I am referring here specifically to RO abuse.
>
> Previous memos (explicitly 192:3 and 192:4) have bandied various
> clauses and
> implications of the ROs, preposessing to posess some kind of
> authority as to
> said interpretations.
>
> This, unfortunately, could be nonsense. How do we even know which
> ROs are
> the ROs on this ephemeral internet? (Or even to talk about them see
> RO 7)
>
> This begs the question of "Who is the judge of the ROs?" Surely only
> the
> Judge can ultimately be the judge (see RO 6) (RO 6 "There is no ...
> RO
> 6!"). So given that this particular Judge has absolute power on the
> interpretation of the ROs, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,
> the Judge
> could simply (unreasonably) abuse (er, I meant "interpret") the ROs
> to
> unilaterally end the round, reinstate himself and set up Imperial FRC
> as it
> were.
>
> The main problem with this interpretation is that it would mean the
> end of
> FRC as we know it. Small price to pay for taking over really. Maybe
> a
> flame war would ensue as a Rebel Alliance of players tries to free
> the FRC
> from the tyranny of the Emperor Judge.
>
> Finally, for those who came in late, and to stave off any chance of
> such
> behaviour, here are the current ROs (to my imperfect knowledge) for
> all to
> see.
>
> Regular Ordinances of the Fantasy Rules Committee (FRC)
>
> 1. Ordinances. There shall be two types of ordinances: regular
> ordinances
> and fantasy rules. Fantasy rules shall have no effect on play
> except
> as provided for in the regular ordinances.
>
> 2. Membership. Any person may become a member of this committee by
> posting in the committee forum a statement of intent to join.
> A member may resign from the committee at any time.
>
> 3. Starting a Round and posting Rules.
> Whenever a round of play ends, a new round should begin as soon as
> possible thereafter. The (new) Judge shall determine the exact
> time
> of the start of the round, and e may also suggest a theme for the
> round and nominate a member to post the first fantasy rule.
> All members are eligible as if they had posted a valid fantasy
> rule at the start of the round.
> Only those persons eligible to play may post fantasy rules.
> The Judge is not eligible.
>
> 4. Eligibility to play. Each valid fantasy rule makes its author
> eligible
> to play. This eligibility period lasts for seven (7) days from the
> time of the rule's posting minus one (1) day for each invalid
> fantasy
> rule posted by the same person after the valid fantasy rule.
>
> 5. End of Game. If at any time after the seventh day of a round,
> there is
> only one person eligible to play, then
> (a) all current fantasy rules are repealed
> (b) the round ends
> (c) the sole remaining player is declared winner of the just ended
> round and becomes Judge.
>
> 6. Judge. The Judge is responsible for interpreting the ordinances
> and
> determining the validity of fantasy rules. If a fantasy rule is
> inconsistent with itself, previously posted valid fantasy rules,
> or
> the regular ordinances, then the Judge shall declare that rule
> invalid
> or unsuccesful, otherwise e shall declare it valid.
>
> 6a. A fantasy rule can only be declared unsuccesful if the only rule
> or
> rules it is inconsistent with are other fantasy rules for which
> it
> is reasonable to assume that the poster of the rule had not seen
> them
> before e posted the rule.
>
> 6b. Resignation. The Judge may resign if e appoints a successor who
> agrees
> to serve as Judge until the end of the round.
> [The new Judge becomes ineligible to play upon the old Judge's
> resignation.]
>
> 7. Style Points. For each fantasy rule posted, the Judge shall
> award X
> points, where -3<=X<=3. The Judge may use any criteria e sees
> fit for
> such awards. At the end of a Round the Player who has collected
> the
> most Style Points will be the Wizard in the next Round.
>
> 8. Restrictions on Judge's Power. The decision of the Judge may be
> changed if a proposal is made to do so and that proposal
> receives a two-thirds affirmative vote of the members voting on
> that proposal within three (3) days after the posting of that
> proposal.
>
> Default. If the Judge does not declare judgment of a fantasy
> rule within three (3) days after its posting, e shall be
> considered then to have decided and declared that rule valid.
>
> 9. Amendment. The regular ordinances may be amended if a proposal
> is
> posted to do so and said proposal receives a two-thirds (2/3)
> affirmative vote of the members voting on that proposal within
> seven
> (7) days after the posting of that proposal.
> Overrule. The regular ordinances may be overruled for a single
> round if a proposal is posted to do so and said proposal receives
> a two-thirds (2/3) affirmative vote of the members voting on that
> proposal within three (3) days after the posting of that
> proposal.
>
> 10. Where to Do Things. All actions under these rules must be
> accomplished
> by a public posting in the official committee forum.
> The Judge may determine the location and nature of the official
> committee forum.
>
> PS - in honor of the Judge's Imperial ambitions, each future rule
> shall
> include a gratuitous epic movie reference. And will hiding this
> bizarre
> restriction at the end of such a long rule gain or lose style points
> for
> sneakiness?
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-08-22 11:34:05 GMT
VALID +2.5
Yes. Yes. Hmmm, yes. Yes! Ahhhh yes indeed! In order for me to
be a winner everyone else will have to be a loser. Therefore anyone
who sets out writing rules that encourage others to lose (by including
unbearable restrictions, and distracting future posters from previous
ones) is clearly on my side. Points for aggressive play and for
reminding us all of the awesome power that is indeed mine, should I
choose to wield it.
Minus 0.5 style points for daring to question how I might appoint style
points.
**************
Subject: Re: 192:6 VALID +2.0
To: frc_at_trolltech.com
--- "Mary K. Kuhner" <mkkuhner_at_eskimo.com> wrote:
> From: Storm, free-lance gladiator-at-law
> To: All FRC Legal Counsel
> Re: Cutting to the chase
>
> Gentlebeings, a much simpler solution lies in RO 9:
>
> 9. Amendment. [...]
> Overrule. The regular ordinances may be overruled for a single
> round if a proposal is posted to do so and said proposal
> receives
> a two-thirds (2/3) affirmative vote of the members voting on
> that
> proposal within three (3) days after the posting of that
> proposal.
>
> Pull the sword from the stone! Propose a temporary overrule
> modifying the transfer of Judicial power and thereby making yourself
> Judge for the next round! The only drawback is the need for a
> 2/3 affirmative vote of the members voting. This is easily overcome.
> RO 2 provides:
>
> 2. Membership. Any person may become a member of this committee by
> posting in the committee forum a statement of intent to join.
> A member may resign from the committee at any time.
>
> We note that the Judge is a member, and may therefore vote. All
> he needs to do, then, is insure either that other votes are positive,
> or that there are no other votes. I suggest that the simplest
> solution is "there can be only one". Voter-removal services will
> be cheerfully provided on request.
>
> I also note that my colleagues have been, so far, defeatist in the
> extreme. From here on rules must not only acknowledge a difficulty
> with their proposal, but must show how that difficulty can be
> overcome.
> Proposals such as memos 192:3 or 192:4 do not show the degree of
> positive thinking required of our profession!
>
> Storm
>
> --
>
> Mary Kuhner mkkuhner_at_eskimo.com
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-08-22 19:39:00 GMT
VALID +2.0
Purely for offering voter removal services.
After a weekend of contemplation and intense soul-searching. The judge
has attained an even higher plateau of consciousness than before. New
possibilities have opened up whose promises must not be neglected.
Possibilities like being free to let a week go by without opening his
email. The promise of fame and fortune without the burden of
responsibility. The judge now wishes to consider how he might win the
current round and yet be relieved of the onerous task of actually
judging rules. As it is of course the purpose of the Fantasy Rules
Comittee to think of ways to make the judge happy, we are happily
looking forward to all of your clever suggestions.
**************
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:55:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joshua" <j3b4_at_yahoo.com> | Block Address | Add to Address Book
Subject: ROUND 192 SUMMARY
To: "Joshua" <j3b4_at_yahoo.com>, frc_at_trolltech.com
192 Round Summary.
(Imperial Disclaimer: Just because we're posting these statistics in no
way indicates that we endorese this outdated system and method of
determining the winner of the round.)
RULES
192:0 START 2002-08-21 03:20:33 GMT
192:1 Henry P Towsner 2002-08-21 03:47:20 GMT VALID +1.5
192:2 Andre Engels 2002-08-21 14:03:21 GMT VALID +1.0
192:3 Rich Holmes 2002-08-21 15:30:47 GMT VALID +1.0
192:4 Ed Murphy 2002-08-22 05:41:01 GMT VALID +2.0
192:5 G. Tripper 2002-08-22 11:34:05 GMT VALID +2.5
192:6 Mary Kuhner 2002-08-22 19:39:00 GMT VALID +2.0
ELIGIBILITY
Mary Kuhner 2002-08-29 19:39:00 GMT
G. Tripper 2002-08-29 11:34:05 GMT
Ed Murphy 2002-08-29 05:41:01 GMT
Rich Holmes 2002-08-28 15:30:47 GMT
Andre Engels 2002-08-28 14:03:21 GMT
Henry P Towsner 2002-08-28 03:47:20 GMT
Everyone else 2002-08-28 03:20:33 GMT
Mary Kuhner is next in line for my job at this time and Galivanting is
the prospective Wizard.
--
Rule Date: 2002-08-27 04:55:26 GMT
**************
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:16:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joshua" <j3b4_at_yahoo.com> | Block Address | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: 192:7 INVALID +3.0
To: frc_at_trolltech.com
--- Gallivanting Tripper <tripper_at_zad.att.ne.jp> wrote:
> From: G. Tripper, Missing Identity Clerk
> To: All FRC Legal Counsel
> Re: Masquerade
>
> Fellow Members:
>
> A disturbing thought has crossed my mind.
>
> The Judge may be plotting to take control of next round, by
> masquerading as
> one of us. This plan is so simple and yet so effective, he might
> have got
> away with it if it weren't for us meddling kids!
>
> The premise is simple: He walks among us, under the assumed name of a
> Member. Assuming that this plan is not already in action, perhaps
> the next
> rule will be posted by a new Member with the pseudonym of "The
> Judge". Such
> a rule could merely exclude all other Members from posting rules,
> (which
> after all is not illegal, only unstylish, and such a coldly rational
> being
> as our Emperor-elect would have no scruples in so posting), and the
> Judge of
> the next round would be the Judge, aka The Judge. Got it so far?
>
> The advantage of this approach is that it requires no Proposals, such
> as
> would have been required by the suggestions of 192:6 and requires no
> accomplices as recommended by 192:2.
>
> The only disadvantage of this approach is that it is could be
> interpreted as
> being in violation of RO 2 "any person can become a member..."
> together with
> RO 5 "[when] there is only one person eligible to play, then ... (c)
> the
> sole remaining player is declared winner of the just ended round and
> becomes
> Judge." and RO 3 "The Judge is not eligible."
>
> However, this can easily be overcome by interpreting the faux pas
> (false
> step) in RO 5 that the Judge can be the sole remaining _player_,
> which term
> is otherwise undefined in the ROs (except for RO 7, which states that
> a
> player can become Wizard) - so the (The) Judge could merely assert
> that "The
> Judge", although not a distinct person from the being with Imperial
> ambitions, is a distinct player, and therefore can assume Judgeship
> by
> posting the last valid rule.
>
> So. Now the conspiracy is unmasked, and I see only one way to
> prevent it.
> Go tell it from the mountain. No future rule in this round may
> explicitly
> prevent any other member, person, or player from posting valid rules.
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-08-27 15:09:08 GMT
INVALID
STYLE +3.0 For the first display of loyalty to the judge this round
has seen. The Judge will reward...
O Tripper where art Thou? Finally a committee member willing to
sacrifice eirself for the good of eir judge. This is the level of
loyalty and devotion due to an individual as brilliant and magnanimous
as your judge. For those who may wonder how this brave committee
member pulled off this finnessful offering please take note of VALID
Rule 192:5 which states "each future rule shall include a gratuitous
epic movie reference. "
To throw off my enemies Galivanting included three movie titles but was
careful to make sure that none of them were in fact _epic_ films.
epic (Cambridge International Dictionary of English) : [noun]
a film, poem or book which is long and contains a lot of action,
usually dealing with a historical subject ~ "It's one of those old
Hollywood epics with a cast of thousands."
[adjective] ~an epic film about the Roman Empire
/Epic can also be used of events that happen over a long period and
involve a lot of action and difficulty. ~an epic journey/struggle/
Movie reference one: "Masquerade" to show off his brilliance G.T. chose
a title that refers to not one but FIVE movies, all interesting and
worth watching I'm sure, but none of them epics.
1. Masquerade (1988) Directed by Bob Swaim runs a brief 91 minutes
and features a few characters in a murder mystery, (it's in German by
the way).
2. Masquerade (1965) Directed by Basil Dearden runs for 102 minutes
and come close to epicness but it's cast is rather small. Furthermore
IMDB user lora61 from Canada calls it a spy thriller. " My main reason
for watching is to see Jack Hawkins whom I always admired. There's some
violence of course, and a shootout, but it's to be expected in this
kind of movie. A good show."
3. Masquerade (1931) Directed by Casey Robinson
Runtime: 20 (decidedly un-epic)
4. Masquerade (1929) Directed by Russell Birdwell may have been epic in
length (?) but the cast contained only six characters with names and
five more including first, second, third and fourth reporter.
5. Masquerade (1924) Directed by Dave Fleischer
Genre: Animation / Comedy / Short (more)
Sound Mix: Silent
~short, comedy, silent... epic? nah.
Then to really throw you off the devious trip-taker tossed you this red
herring:
The Judge (1916)
Genre: Comedy
Credited cast overview: Mack Sennett , Charles Murray (I) ,Louise
Fazenda , Phyllis Allen, Harry Booker (I)
Color: Black and White
Sound Mix: Silent
Finally some of the more perceptive council members might have picked
up on Gal's subtle reference to...
"Go Tell it On the Mountain" Directed by Stan Lathan (1984)
Runtime: 96
(The entire book takes place on the fourteenth birthday of John
Grimes...)
Anonymous from New York says, "This film version of James Baldwin's
classic novel seems more like a documentary than a drama. There is
little dramatic tension, and too much time given to peripheral
characters and plotlines to let it really work on an emotional level."
~Right, 96 minutes and the whole story takes place on John's birthday.
Not exactly epic. Oh and it was made for T.V.
--
Rule Date: 2002-08-28 14:16:37 GMT
**************
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:09:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joshua" <j3b4_at_yahoo.com> | Block Address | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: 192:8 INVALID +1.0
To: "Henry P Towsner" <htowsner_at_stanford.edu>, frc_at_trolltech.com
--- Henry P Towsner <htowsner_at_stanford.edu> wrote:
> (Okay, NOW it's finished)
>
> From: H. Towsner, Associate Counsel for Stuff
> To: All FRC Legal Counsel
> Re: What is truth?
>
> I was recently speaking with our janitor (who, you will all
> recall, was determined to be a member of the FRC legal counsel during
> that
> attorney-client privilage unpleasantness), and he made an intriguing
> point.
> The ROs ("ten commandments," as he put it) state that "The
> Judge
> may determine the location and nature of the official committee
> forum."
> Now, as Storm has noted (192:6), if the Judge were the only person to
> vote
> on a proposal to retain him as Judge, he would be guaranteed victory.
> It
> follows that the Judge may *already* have done that, on a secret
> official
> forum of which we are unaware, voted for it, and is merely waiting
> the
> requisite three days before announcing his plan. Indeed, perhaps
> this
> explains his mysterious three day disappearance.
> There is a small difficulty, namely the first clause of RO10
> (cf.
> 192:5): "All actions under these rules must be accomplished by a
> public
> posting in the official committee forum." It could be argued that
> "determining" is an action, and so an announcement would be required,
> giving us the opportunity to also send messages to the forum. This
> problem is easily solved: the Judge could move the forum to something
> inaccessible to us (for instance by mandating that all communication
> be in
> the form of secrets whispered to him at midnight under a full moon),
> and
> then make the proposal, vote for it, and wait.
> Given this new possibility, I propose that each future rule
> complement our exquisitely fair Judge for having not done so thus
> far.
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-08-27 17:37:11 GMT
INVALID
Style +1.0
In my wisdom and "exquisite fairness" I have interpretted 192:4's "
Each future rule shall explicitly refer to at least two Regular
Ordinances, and at least two previous rules." to dictate that in order
to EXPLICITLY refer to a Regular Ordinance one must cite the
ordinance's number. Towsner fails to do this twice despite managing
to quote two different passages from the R.O.s (with the help of the
Janitor).
As far as style, well I like the fact that we got the janitor involved.
He's always been a favorite of mine, but the restriction is far too
'nice' and has little potential for screwing fellow council members.
__
Rule Date: 2002-08-29 04:10:18 GMT
**************
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:24:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joshua" <j3b4_at_yahoo.com> | Block Address | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: 192:9 Invalid -3.0! You incompetant FOOL!!!
To: "the Judge" <thejudge_at_alemail.com>, frc_at_trolltech.com
--- the Judge <thejudge_at_alemail.com> wrote:
> That's right.
>
> That rule preventing me (er I mean another player from posting a
> round killer is like TOTALLY BOgus!
>
> Mu heh heh eh eh ehhhe heheh @@!
>
> Thats it.
> So here's 192:9
>
> All future rules must not be valid, Er I mean no more futures will be
> validly posted... Uh, i MEAN.. Damn you never told me hoew to werd
> it.
>
> Gulp I aint talking to nobody.
>
> Anyways the poiint of this rule is just to say the The JUdge is now
> the winner and ther aint nothing you goody goody legal beagles can
> do about it. So there!
>
> BYE.
>
> the JUDGE.
>
>
> p.s. i HERBY ANNOUNCE MY INTENTION to join the funtasy rules
> committee!
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Get your free email from http://www.alemail.com
>
> Powered by Outblaze
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-08-28 14:25:13 GMT
IN-F***ING-VALID!!
Style -9999.9 (+9996.9 for not me being allowed to deduct more)= -3.0
T.J. you are the most pathetic sniveling excuse for an accomplice!
Never before in the history of all committee coups had any judge of my
brilliance been so hobbled by such worthless assistants!
Never mind the fact that you idiotically blew your cover by praising me
needlessly for a perfectly regular invalidation of 192:7, never mind
that you rule was written with such an atrocious lack of style as to me
nearly illegible, this aside you failed to observe even a single
restriction imposed my previous rules thus making it impossible for me
to declare your rule valid. Furthermore you wrote a restriction so
muddled as to be completely useless. I'm sure you were told exactly
what to write. There was no need for embellishment and no excuse for
confusion.
As it turns out all of that idiocy was made irrelevant by your ultimate
failure to post you simply stinking rule before your eligibility
expired, which it did, HOURS before you got around to posting!
You are such a disgrace that were it in the judge's power to do so -
and I just might make such a proposal - I would ban you from ever
showing your stupid face (er email alias) in this forum again.
P.S. (to the committee): I absolutely and categorically deny any or all
allegations that I may in fact be the same person as the bumbling fool
calling himself theJudge.
**************
To: "Joshua" <j3b4_at_yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 192:9 Invalid -3.0! You incompetant FOOL!!!
From: "Richard S. Holmes" <rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu> | Block Address | Add to Address Book
Date: 29 Aug 2002 09:58:27 -0400
Joshua <j3b4_at_yahoo.com> writes:
> IN-F***ING-VALID!!
> Style -9999.9 (+9996.9 for not me being allowed to deduct more)= -3.0
Didn't you forget the first-timer's bonus? -9999.9 + 0.5 first timer
+ 9996.4 for not being allowed to deduct more = -3.0 ...
Unless of course you have some reason to believe "the Judge" is NOT a
first-timer...
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
**************
From: "Gallivanting Tripper" <tripper_at_zad.att.ne.jp> | Block Address | Add to Address Book
To: "Joshua" <j3b4_at_yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 192:7 INVALID +3.0
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:19:42 +0900
> Finally some of the more perceptive council members might have picked
> up on Gal's subtle reference to...
> "Go Tell it On the Mountain" Directed by Stan Lathan (1984)
> Runtime: 96
> (The entire book takes place on the fourteenth birthday of John
> Grimes...)
> Anonymous from New York says, "This film version of James Baldwin's
> classic novel seems more like a documentary than a drama. There is
> little dramatic tension, and too much time given to peripheral
> characters and plotlines to let it really work on an emotional
level."
> ~Right, 96 minutes and the whole story takes place on John's
birthday.
> Not exactly epic. Oh and it was made for T.V.
>
Pah! Ever heard of "The 10 commandments" with Charlton Heston?!
Not that I'd be one to query the Judge's fathomless knowledge of
non-epic
movies...
But pleased to know that I inspired (the inevitable) 192:9
Cheers
GT
**************
--
Rule Date: 2002-09-03 04:33:09 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST