From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Thu Nov 14 2002 - 11:57:57 PST
Tieka <cmhuston_at_mts.net> writes: > Ah, the agony for the Judge. A beutiful eulogy, and it follows the > suggestion (restrictions) of 196:1-7, but alas, it is longer than 196:4. I > wish that I could do more for this wonderful rule, but style of +3.0 is all > that I can do for this INVALID rule. I can suggest a couple of ways you could do more for this rule. Observe that 196:3 reads in part: So, I recommend that we should eschew he sillyness of limerics, as 2 is a strange prime, but instead follow round 7's lead and make all eulogies shorter than those before them It would be perfectly consistent with your policy of regarding "suggestions" as not being binding restrictions to take this "recommendation" as also failing to impose a requirement. But even if this "recommendation" *is* binding, there's a perfectly reasonable interpretation under which 196:8 is VALID. After all, 196:3 did NOT say ...but instead follow round 7's lead and make all eulogies shorter than EACH OF those before them [although I suppose if you want to be even more pedantic, you could say that either of these requirements is impossible to meet, as contrasted with the more feasible ...but instead follow round 7's lead and make EACH OF OUR eulogies shorter than EACH OF those before them ] -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY -- Rule Date: 2002-11-14 19:58:19 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST