[Oh my God, they killed Kenny!] Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:41:41 +0200 86:1 Laurent Bossavit VALID, +0.5 Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:24:27 +0200 86:2 Andre Engels VALID, +0.5 Fri, 24 Oct 1997 20:50:03 +0200 86:3 Charles Carroll INVALID, +1.0 Fri, 24 Oct 1997 22:04:41 +0200 86:4 John-Martin Lotz INVALID, +1.0 Fri, 24 Oct 1997 23:38:00 +0200 86:5 Jeremy D Selengut INVALID, +0.5 ----- 86:1 ----- F. R. Committee Passes On Nomicians from the world over were gathered last week at a peculiar wake. Following the untimely demise of F.R. C. after a long and painful illness, at age 85, this unlikely crowd assembled to mourn the oldest member of the Nomic family. As the ceremony got underway, associates of the dear departed ascended to the pulpit one after the other, to offer an eulogy (or Rule, as this tightly-knit community quaintly insists on calling their homages to the memory of an old friend). Even in grief, Nomicians are wondrous public speakers, and each delivered a strikingly evocative account of their best moments with F.R. C ----- 86:2 ----- The first Rule was spoken by a voice coming out of the depth. The voice did not identify itself, but that was enough for identification, as only the ghost of Nomic World, that legend of Nomics, long ago gone, would ever speak a Rule without starting by identifying itself. The voice spoke: " It was a long time ago that I went away from this world. You were just a child by then, only ten rounds old or so, but what magnificent rounds they were. I well remember that last Rule of Round 7. B! Has any nomic ever had a Rule better than this one? I was happy to see that after my death you remained alive. Yes, I did see. Every now and again I get the possibility to look back from this afterlife and see what happens on the world of email nomic. You even prospered and kept the Nomic ideal alive. You had your own form of achieving it, but a great form it was. But then, just when the rest of the family started to bloom, your illness started, you took your rounds with much too few Rules. Many things were tried, but none worked, and now you are here... Well, I have to go again. The powers that be only gave me this much time to be here. I wish all present strength in this hard time. Fare well! " ----- 86:3 ----- A small, balding man with large glasses stepped to the podium. Clearly, he was deeply affected by the loss of FRC. "You had many interests, but looking over your varied rounds, I see that you were particularly devoted to fostering scholarship and research among your friends. "And although nomics often seem to be creating their own terminology, none went as far as you in the study of languages. In Round 17, you directed your colleagues to study the beautiful language, and the exquisite culture--so foreign to our own, and yet somehow so familiar--of tiyi ejep val$ar. "Of my friend, I can say only this: ")khavir ol )FRC." ----- 86:4 ----- A tall bearded man strode to the podium, "I am new here, and so did not have the chance that experience the pleasure of FRC's company. However, it seems to me that the this retrospective of FRC's past involve telling a fact about a game of the FRC and including a comment that is valid within ruleset of that game." In fact I am glad, this has me review the games that have occured, to gain appreciation of the artistry and deftness of the rules of the past I am a Futurist. I vote 'YES, FRC should continue.' I am refering to Game 62." ----- 86:5 ----- 86:5 includes a nice idea, but some might construe it, in stylish form as a round killer, requesting inclusion of: "a comment that is valid within ruleset of [a previous] game" Fear not! Only rules can be VALID or INVALID, there is no need to construct a "comment" that would be a VALID rule of the final game-state of a previous round. Perhaps the judge will find that what must be included is a comment which would not by its inclusion invalidate such a N+1th rule. Thus in the loophole-finding tradition of the frc, I state: All "comments" included to fulfill the requirements of 86:4 must be placed within quotes. Not all text within quotes are necessarily such comments. I, by being self-referential, am referring to this round. If this rule is VALID then so are the comments embedded in it. No future rule may abrogate future rules' ability to fulfil the requirements of 86:4 by disallowing self-reference to the present round! HA! Most fun I've had in 10 rounds... Could this be one of my "best moments with the FRC? Have I been evocative enough? Each eulogizes in his or her own way. Only the Judge can say whether I have stretched 86:1 to the breaking point yet. I, of course, think not! -- Ed Murphy http://www.bayside.net/users/ford/ "I see," said Arthur, who didn't.