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