Re: 169:A

From: Gallivanting Tripper (
Date: Wed Oct 03 2001 - 03:46:02 PDT

Anton Cox wrote:

> > PS - I thought the ruling of UNSUCCESSFUL was eminently fair, (although
> > ultimately harsh) and a good (albeit unorthodox) interpretation of RO 6a
>I am not sure about unorthodox. If Aron did not receive the earlier
>rule - or rather if the judge can reasonably assume this from the
>rule that he posts -  then his rule should be unsuccessful.

What I meant was that RO 6a says that a rule can only be ruled unsucessful
if it is "inconsistent" with a rule that the poster had not seen.  Since the
first 169:14 was invalid, Aron's rule cannot have been "inconsistent" by the
usual interpretation.  My interpretation was that Aron's rule was
inconsistent with the first 169:14 merely because it claimed the same rule

And I can't defend that interpretation any more than I already have :)



Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

Rule Date: 2001-10-03 10:46:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST