From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 19:11:49 PDT
Steve Gardner <gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au> writes:
> On Thu, 22 May 2003, Richard S. Holmes wrote:
>
> > > That last restriction is such a brilliant stroke that I am left almost
> > > speechless. How could it possibly be improved upon? Oh, I know: let's
> > > *require* each future rule to include ad hominem remarks. What could
> > > possibly be more fun than spending the Round insulting each other?
> >
> > Validity: Quotes not the previous rule but the rule before the
> > previous rule. The previous rule was Steve's own, so Steve could
> > hardly be unaware of it, so a ruling of UNSUCCESSFUL cannot be made.
> > INVALID.
> >
> > Style: Invalidity is always unstylish. In addition there's the fact
> > that this rule fails to obey the restriction of Steve's previous rule;
> > maybe Steve anticipated the latter's UNSUCCESSFUL ruling, but that
> > seems dubious. The quoting of the entire previous rule may have been
> > due to the ambiguity of 209:3. To forestall inflationary future
> > rules, I will interpret 209:3 as requiring only that a (significant)
> > portion of the previous rule be quoted. -1.5.
>
> With his usual insouciance, The Great Carpenter Holmes manages to hit
> the wrong nail squarely on the head. In fact, I did anticipate the
> UNSUCCESSFUL ruling, but in the same breath managed to forget the reason
> for it: that 209:3 preceded mine, hence mine succeeded it, hence my own
> Rule was the one I should be quoting. What a genius I am! That's what I
> get for messing with Murphy's Law.
>
> Still, since the proposed restriction of the INVALID and oh-so-
> tremendously unstylish 209:5 is manifestly of superlative quality, I'm
> going to repropose it here, and Mr. Arbiter-of-all-that-is-Sarcastic can
> do as he pleases: future Rules are required to include ad hominem
> remarks.
>
> --
>
>
> 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 |
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2003-05-23 01:52:39 GMT
>
Validity: Alas. You'd think third time would be the charm, wouldn't
you? But while this rule does comment on a previous rule, it does not
comment on the sarcasm in that rule, and hence runs afoul of 209:2.
INVALID.
So ad hominem attacks are still not required -- but I'm going to see
that good ones get style awards.
Style: Normally it'd be unstylish to reiterate a restriction from a
previous, failed rule. However I confess I was going to bump up the
style award of 209:5 a little in recognition of a nicely nasty
restriction, and forgot to do so. So I'll tack it on here rather than
docking for repetition. Invalidity does its usual damage. +1.5.
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
"We're waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on." -- Pete Seeger
--
Rule Date: 2003-05-23 02:12:04 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST