From: Alan Riddell (peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 03:03:13 PST
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Riddell" <peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk> To: "Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)" <jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Proposal 196:G > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)" <jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com> > To: <frc_at_trolltech.com> > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:07 AM > Subject: Proposal 196:G > > > > Upon the adoption of this proposal, the decision of the judge for 196:8 > > will be changed to Valid. > > > > My arguments: > > > > I really hate to throw yet another proposal out there, but I feel I need > > to establish this precedent with regards to the requirement of 196:3. > > 196:3 states: "make all eulogies shorter than those before them". Since it > > doesn't state the all eulogies must be shorter than the one eulogy > > immediately before it, we must assume that the eulogy must be shorter than > > the combination of ALL eulogies that came before it. > > > > Below, I've provided a character count of all of the rules up to and > > including 196:8. Carriage returns have been treated as a character for > > this count. > > > > 196:1 - 462 > > 196:2 - 1016 > > 196:3 - 438 > > 196:4 - 342 > > 196:5 - 219 > > 196:6 - 165 > > 196:7 - 164 > > 196:8 - 1214 > > BTW I would like to point out that only the Eulogy has to be shorter NOT the > entire rule or posting. > -- Rule Date: 2002-11-15 11:03:36 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST