From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Sun Mar 31 2002 - 13:10:13 PST
"Richard S. Holmes" wrote: > If the judge will kindly explain how he's trouble making sense of the > above, I can perhaps clarify. I contend it does make sense; that it > is consistent with all previous rules; and that 180:4 ought to be > rejudged VALID. But I will withhold a proposal to that effect until > the Judge clarifies his ruling, in case I'm missing something. > > -- > - Rich Holmes > Syracuse, NY It was late last night when I issued that judgement, so I probably didn't explain my reasoning very well. I fully agree with your statement that rule 180:2 becomes: "A rule containing the word Splitsplotsplinksplonk shall never have its description [The bracketed one] after it." However, this seems to imply the existance of some object called the description of a rule [the one in brackets] that cannot precede the rule. The use of the definite article and the specification that the bracketed description is meant both seem to indicate to me that this bracketed description of a rule actually exists, at least for rules 2, 3, & 4. However I do not see that this is the case. If I'm missing something and there is such a thing as the description of each of these rules that makes sense, please tell me. The Judge -- Rule Date: 2002-03-31 21:09:54 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST