Re: 170:4- Why are we wasting away?

From: Factitious (
Date: Sat Oct 13 2001 - 22:50:02 PDT

"Jesse F. W" wrote:

> A missive to the Honorable FRC,
> ---Rule 170:4----
> Writer of rules wonders why wide-ranging wordage has wound
> down.  Now, this new rule nabs neophytes; no to a nap.   Most parts
> of each passage must be prefixed with the postmost letter of the
> preceding passage.  Enter, enterprising enemies...
> ----End of Rule----
>                         Jesse W
> --
> Rule Date: 2001-10-12 06:05:12 GMT

Validity:  INVALID. 6 out of 16 words in the third sentence start with
the letter "p". This is not quite a majority.  There is support for the
idea that this rule is meant to apply to itself in the second sentence.
Jesse can indeed be considered a neophyte (having joined at about the
time I did), and has in fact been nabbed by this rule. Also, the rule
was clearly intended to meet it's own restriction.

Style: +1 for going against the assumed custom of complete
alliteration.  -1 for not meeting the fine standards of complete
alliteration that we've seen in other rules. +1 for a good restriction.
+.5 for addressing my concerns about the round winding down. Total: +1.5

Rule Date: 2001-10-14 05:49:59 GMT

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