Re: 185:8: VALID, -0.7

From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Sat Jun 01 2002 - 19:29:45 PDT


Glenn & Chrystal Overby <guardcaptain_at_earthlink.net> writes:

> <rule>
> My colleague is right.  I am indeed Righteous and Conceited.  However, his call is
> just...if not stylish...so I shall also post a Rule.
>
> But I would first point out that the reference in Rule 185:1 to an obscure Texas
> Libertarian politician borders on defaming the Congressman in question.  The
> Honorable Ron Paul was elected as a Republican member of Congress, not a
> Libertarian.  I am certain that in Republican circles calling the honorable member a
> Libertarian is injurious to his reputation.  :)
>
> I disagree with my un-Righteous and non-Conceited Modest Predecessor about
> style.  EVERYTHING is a matter of style.
>   (See http://home.earthlink.net/~guardcaptain/Style.html)
> Committee members should get off their bums and more aggressively judge style.
> Therefore, any Rule may be declared Sucky by the Committee's passing a Proposal
> to that effect.  If a Rule is declared Sucky, it must be declared INVALID by the Judge,
> as we can't afford Sucky Rules when we also have sleepy members.
> </rule>
>
> Glenn E. Overby II
> Tilton, Illinois, USA
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-06-01 16:21:34 GMT
>

JUDGEMENT: No problems.

STYLE: Of course the style must be negative.  That's hardly difficult,
however.  Lines over 80 characters, pseudo-HTML, a smiley emoticon
ferheavensake -- I'd say that's a solid 0.7 points worth of penalty!
And not a hint of defamation as far as I can see.  My fellow committee
members, of course, may see further than I...

--
- Rich Holmes
  Syracuse, NY

--
Rule Date: 2002-06-02 02:30:06 GMT


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