173:9 VALID Style +2.0

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

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
>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