Re: 196:13

From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 06:20:23 PST

• Next message: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby): "Re: 196:13"
• Previous message: Jonathan David Amery: "Re: 196:13"
• Maybe in reply to: Jonathan David Amery: "196:13"
• Next in thread: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: 196:13"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Steve Gardner <gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au> writes:

> Any future Rule would
> perforce violate one of the restrictions.

And therefore no more rules could be judged valid -- so unless they
were made valid by default or by override, or one of the contradictory
rules was made invalid by overrride, the round would be over.

-- 
- Rich Holmes
  Syracuse, NY

-- 
Rule Date: 2002-11-22 14:20:43 GMT

• Next message: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby): "Re: 196:13"
• Previous message: Jonathan David Amery: "Re: 196:13"
• Maybe in reply to: Jonathan David Amery: "196:13"
• Next in thread: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: 196:13"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

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