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