From: Alan Riddell (pkpeekee_at_hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Dec 23 2001 - 04:51:59 PST
> >>>>> >Future rules must describe something their authors like, with reasons. >Thus, Committee members might learn more about each other. > >Stephen likes (most) classical music. Reasons: emotional power/intensity, >plus good tunes! ><<<<< Meets 173:1 & 2 and yes I agree on Steve's interpretation that words may be repeated in seperate rules, but not in any single rule. 31 words. I also judge that going off in a new unexpected direction is at this point themeless although it will make it more difficult for future rules to remain themeless. Clearly steve's rule does exist without three lines and I take without to mean as he does in that rules must have less than three lines unless they list... However IMO for a line to exist on an email considering wordwrap it must be seperated and not just wrapped round. (If that makes sense) Style, I actually rather like his new random themeless choice of theme, thus style +2.0 Below are Steve's notes on validity. >173.2: People seem to be taking this rule to mean that rules may not repeat >words from other rules. While I am amazed by James and Glenn's verbal >dexterity, that was not my intention. I only meant that words may not >repeat words within themselves, and I hope that the Judge will use this >interpretation! > >173:7.2: I'm not really sure what this means in practice. It could be >argued that I am illegally starting a theme here. I would counter that >heading off in a totally new direction is far less themeful than continuing >the implicit theme of "syntactic restrictions on rules". > >173:7.3: I'm assuming that "without" is used here in the older meaning, >i.e. the opposite of "within". Alan "Peekee" Riddell _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- Rule Date: 2001-12-23 12:52:21 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST