From: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) (jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com)
Date: Tue Nov 26 2002 - 15:58:50 PST
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Steve Gardner wrote: > The restriction is in the last sentence: you are supposed to > anagrammatize more extravagantly than I do. Of course, exactly what that > means is left deliberately vague to give the Judge something interesting > to think about. But there are four anagrams of 'Fantasy Rules Committee' > in my Rule... Very nicely played. I found the last anagram, but overlooked the other 3. I assumed that the restriction would have something to do with anagrams of 'Fantasy Rules Committee', hence the anagram I threw into my rule. However, I only have one anagram and it doesn't fit into the rest of the rule too well, unlike all of yours. *sigh* > > I haven't decided yet... And how about that Chinese puzzle > > box? Is it an unopened box that needs opening (197:03)? If it is, that's > > quite a lengthy description to surpass (196:04). > > It certainly is an unopened box that needs opening. Yeah, I kinda counted on that in my rule as well. But getting a box with a longer name, dang! Brought me back to the days of counting words to complete a 100 word essay, except that this was counting out characters to complete a 317 character name. -- Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) -- Rule Date: 2002-11-27 00:09:34 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST