Re: 208:3 VALID +2.0

From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: Wed May 21 2003 - 19:58:23 PDT


Richard Holmes wrote:

>Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com> writes:
>
> > >I see a potential paradox here.  +1.0 Style to the first player who
> > >identifies the one I have in mind.
> >
> > Alan Riddell identified it.  I hereby increase the Style of 208:4
> > from +0.0 to +1.0
>
>So what was the potential paradox?

I mentioned it in the final summary.  208:3 said "a rule of type X
remains in effect until a rule of type Y overrides it".  208:3 /was/
a rule of type X.  What would have happened if a rule of type Y had
attempted to override /that particular clause/ of 208:3?

-- 
Rule Date: 2003-05-22 03:30:14 GMT


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