From: Gallivanting Tripper (flix_os_at_hotmail.com)
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 number. And I can't defend that interpretation any more than I already have :) Cheers, GT _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- 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