From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Tue Mar 29 2005 - 10:51:58 PST
Aron Wall wrote: > Rich Holmes wrote: > > > Aron Wall <aron_at_wall.org> writes: > > > > > 1) The first sentence clearly implies that the TVRotR will exist. Now, there > > > is an argument that this is contrary to the RO's. For it might well be that > > > despite being the theme, the TVRotR is never written. That would leave the > > > statement as being untrue, and the untruth of the statement would follow from > > > the RO's, as acting upon the specific circumstance. I will not however take > > > this interpretation, because: > > > a) the RO's do allow the TVRotR to exist, and in this respect it is > > > consistent. Even if it makes a false statement about the round, this concerns > > > future rules, while it is only required to be consistent with past rules. > > > b) seeing as the TVRotR is the theme of the round, even if it is never written > > > one might view it as the "fantasy domain" of the round, about which rules make > > > statements which are required to be consistent. Of course, this does not > > > change the fact that if nine VALID rules are submitted, the next rule after > > > that is required to match up to all the things which have been said about it. > > > c) the theme naturally draws rules into assuming that the TVRotR exists. It > > > would be rather tricksy of me to condemn such a natural result of my own > > > theme. > > > > Not to mention the fact that there are rules all the time that say > > something like "The next rule will explain what Harry was doing", and > > no one bats an eye. > > > > - Rich Holmes > > Yes, but at the other extreme one has to deal with rules which say things like: > > "The Judge will judge the next fantasy rule posted to be VALID" > > Aron Wall X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <4249A7DF.C369EDD0_at_wall.org> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:09:19 -0700 From: Aron Wall <aron_at_wall.org> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.6.8-1.521 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rich Holmes <rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu> Subject: Re: rule 234:1 INVALID +0.4 Style References: <000d01c53426$72be4180$12b85251_at_telenet.be> <42499EE8.5EC3E987_at_wall.org> <u4vf7amglw.fsf_at_mep1.phy.syr.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rich Holmes wrote: > Aron Wall <aron_at_wall.org> writes: > > > 1) The first sentence clearly implies that the TVRotR will exist. Now, there > > is an argument that this is contrary to the RO's. For it might well be that > > despite being the theme, the TVRotR is never written. That would leave the > > statement as being untrue, and the untruth of the statement would follow from > > the RO's, as acting upon the specific circumstance. I will not however take > > this interpretation, because: > > a) the RO's do allow the TVRotR to exist, and in this respect it is > > consistent. Even if it makes a false statement about the round, this concerns > > future rules, while it is only required to be consistent with past rules. > > b) seeing as the TVRotR is the theme of the round, even if it is never written > > one might view it as the "fantasy domain" of the round, about which rules make > > statements which are required to be consistent. Of course, this does not > > change the fact that if nine VALID rules are submitted, the next rule after > > that is required to match up to all the things which have been said about it. > > c) the theme naturally draws rules into assuming that the TVRotR exists. It > > would be rather tricksy of me to condemn such a natural result of my own > > theme. > > Not to mention the fact that there are rules all the time that say > something like "The next rule will explain what Harry was doing", and > no one bats an eye. > > - Rich Holmes Yes but at the other extreme one has to deal with rules which say things like: "The Judge will judge the next fantasy rule posted to be VALID" Aron Wall
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST