From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Tue Sep 11 2001 - 18:15:21 PDT
168:10 Andre Engels 2001-09-11 19:31:45 INVALID +0.75 >>>> > Well, Alan, I see that you do not have a front door yet. What do you think > of this one? I'll place it in the north wall immediately. What? You don't > like it? It's bad quality? Ah well, too bad... > > For your collection of shiny things, I have something really useful: A > magpie. You know, those birds like to collect shiny things. Like this very > shiny ring that... Help! No, kitty, don't! Too bad, your cat ate the magpie... > Well, one advantage - it shows that the magpie was of bad quality, which is > a good thing, since you could not have afforded it otherwise - a full > 100,000 frocloos - no way you ever get that much money. And the cat puts the > ring around her front paw. > > I think it's risky to have bad quality stuff laying around, it would be > better if they just broke directly. Therefore, in every rule where there is > bad quality stuff that has not broken, tarnished or malfunctioned yet, at > least one such thing should do so. >>>> Validity: 168:5 introduced a low-quality spoon which was not destroyed (nor was anything else) in 168:6. INVALID. (Watch out for previous rules when you refer to "every rule", folks!) Style: I like the idea of the restriction, as well as the monetary limit. You've apparently duplicated the door, though. +0.75 -Jesse -- Rule Date: 2001-09-12 01:15:38 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST