Re: Rule 185:3: VALID, +1.5

From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 08:50:41 PDT


Joshua <j3b4_at_yahoo.com> writes:

> In an open hearted attempt to neutralize some of the bad feeling that
> may be creeping into this round I suggest that we learn from the
> excellent examples provided to us by the communist administration in
> China who invented the practice of "self-criticism".  By offering
> self-criticism we reveal our honest intentions and fair spirit before
> tearing mercilessly into the flesh of our esteemed comrades.
>
> To provide a shining example I will admit that even I have a fault.  It
> is hard for me to admit but I am a bit of a perfectionist.  You may not
> think that's a serious fault - I thank you for your generosity if you
> don't - but I feel it can sometimes cause others to look bad  when
> compared to me.  For this reason I am ashamed and deeply request your
> forgiveness and adoration.
>
> Now, having completed my self-criticism I am free to give a frank
> assessment of my fellow committee members.  From what I can see they
> are incompetent and fractious.  If their slovenly behavior continues we
> may all be heading for irredeemable disaster.  I can only hope that
> something is done to make the INVALID rule writers feel a deep and last
> shame for their actions.
>
> Anyone who has written an INVALID rule in this round must make a
> self-criticism and apologize to the committee in their next rule.

JUDGEMENT: No problems.

STYLE: A bit wordy, and only a tenuous connection to the suggested
theme, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.  +1.5

--
- Rich Holmes
  Syracuse, NY

--
Rule Date: 2002-05-30 15:50:56 GMT


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