Re: 229:1 (INVALID, +0.0)

From: Stephen Turner (sret1_at_ntlworld.com)
Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 - 11:53:13 PST


On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Rich Holmes wrote:
>
> And since it is the rules of a different round, not the rules of this
> round nor the ROs, that are being inaccurately described, there is no
> validity-affecting inconsistency.
>

I'd like to point out that there are no fantasy rules from previous rounds.
They are all repealed at the end of the round. Therefore I would take the
restriction to be restricting an empty set, which would certainly mean that
there was no inconsistency.

-- 
Stephen Turner, Cambridge, UK    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adelie/stephen/
  "Low Priced Cambridge Clare College. Big selection at eBay UK!"
  (Ad after Google search for Clare College Cambridge)


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