Re: rules that reinterpret past rules

From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Tue Mar 26 2002 - 10:57:40 PST


Aron Wall <aron_at_wall.org> writes:

> Does anyone really think that rule 3 would be VALID under the current
> R.O.'s?  That seems utterly absurd to me.  I think that rules can make
> themselves or future rules mutable, but to say that they can do this is
> completely contrary to the R.O.'s.  Future rules are dependant on past
> rules, but past rules are independent from future rules.  There is no time
> symmetry of the R.O.'s involved that allows one to say that if rule 179:2
> can reinterpet future rules, that 179:2' can reinterpret a past rule.

I don't see anything in the ROs on the subject of "reinterpretation"
or "mutability".  All I see is that rules must be consistent to be
valid.  On closer examination of the wording of the ROs I'd agree the
x-less version of 179:2' would be INVALID on grounds of inconsistency
with 179:1; it depends on whether consistency means that a new rule
must be consistent with prior rules, or that a ruleset consisting of
the new rule plus the old rules must be consistent, and the ROs seem
to specify the first definition.  But no inconsistency between the
x-containing version of 179:2' and 179:1 or the ROs is evident to me.

I do agree, though, with the earlier point that rules like 179:2'
would normally be considered massively unstylish, to a degree that
modifying the ROs to clearly prohibit them would be, perhaps,
unnecessary.

--
- Rich Holmes
  Syracuse, NY

--
Rule Date: 2002-03-26 18:58:12 GMT


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