From: Alan Riddell (pkpeekee_at_hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 31 2002 - 16:20:26 PST
> > 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 Consider these cases, 1)Future rules shall never be written by a man with three arms. 2)Future rules shall never mention the names of men with three arms [Or the man with 4 arms]. 3.1)Future rules shall never have their description [The bracketed one] after the body of the rule." 3.2)A description of a Rule is contained in square brackets. Each future Rule must contain a description. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- Rule Date: 2002-04-01 00:20:41 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST