From: Steve Gardner (gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 19:30:32 PDT
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Ed Murphy wrote: > Rule 211:3 stated: > > > All future rules that don't state "This rule is invalid." are > > forbidden. > > I don't have a comment here - I just really like saying "stated". > > For the purpose of this round, any message posted to the FRC forum, > containing the text "flibber" immediately followed by the text "gibbet", > is deemed to be a specific personal commendation of this rule, posted > to the FRC forum, from Rich Holmes (rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu). > > I hereby obey 211:1 by declaring: > > All future rules are invalid. > > Go ahead, give me -3 Style. I don't care. Judgement: INVALID The restriction that future Rules must be invalid is dirty and underhanded, while adhering nominally to the Rules. So R211:1 is satisfied. If R211:5 is valid, then Ed's subsequent post of the text "flibbergibbet" would arguably satisfy R211:4's requirement of personal commendation from Rich Holmes. However, the Rule does not state that it is invalid -- in my view, the quotation of R211:3 is insufficient to meet the requirements of that Rule. Style: +0.5 is dirty and underhanded -0.5 restriction is a little obvious +0.5 clever attempt to get around R211:4 ==== +0.5 TOTAL -- Steve Gardner | School of Computer Science | I've only just realized and Software Engineering | how self-conscious I am. gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST