From: Jesse F. W (jessefw_at_loop.com)
Date: Thu Aug 23 2001 - 12:38:55 PDT
Dear Honorable FRC,
Jeremy D. Selengut wrote:
> 167:18
>
> >Parent 167:14
> >"Our overworked Judge will" make us obey rules. This can't be
> >taken for nothing. It is a parasitic rule: A rule-writer must
> >carefully pick the words in their rule, ignoring patented parts,
> >since he must put in the genetic infomation of my rule, in the same
> >order, in his
>
> Submitted by Jesse F. W.
>
> Judgement: INVALID. This rule is attempting to clone 167:14. In
> cloning the genetic code of the clone is the same as that as the
> parent with the exception of any genetic material from words _spliced
> in accordance with previous rules_. The only rule supporting splicing
> is 167:8, which requires the splicing in of 1/2 of the patented phrase
> from the previous rule.
I am not requesting a change of rulling on this. However, I am
aware that I could not use the patented phrase in the previous rule to
include genetic material. I was hopping to use the viral rule, 167:14,
to include the necessary different material by including the word
"the" in the last line as a required part of the viral text, thereby
changing the genetic code. Is this a valid trick?
> The patented phrase from the previous rule in
> this case has no genetic material. Therefore, either the genetic code
> of this rule is identical to that of 167:14 (which is inconsistent
> with 167:12) or it is not identical (which is inconsistent with
> 167:14). QED.
>
> Style: The phrasing and grammar of this rule are awkward and its
> meaning is unclear. The effect of this rule if it were valid would be
> difficult in the extreme and probably round-killing. I would not
> suggest resubmitting a corrected version. -2.0
>
> -TWJ
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2001-08-23 19:27:42 GMT
Thank you very much,
Jesse W
--
Rule Date: 2001-08-23 19:41:37 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST