From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: Sat Apr 05 2003 - 10:21:04 PST
Alan Riddell <peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Lets examine the claims that Rule 206:1 makes. > > 1) April Fool's Day is traditionally a time for jokes. > 2) April Fool's Day is traditionally a time for pranks > 3) On April Fool's newspapers print fake headlines, etc. > 4) For this Round, each Rule must make exactly one claim that is false. > 5) Rule 206:1 makes a claim that is false. > > There is a question that 1) and 2) might both be in the same claim, > similarly 4) and 5) might be in the same claim. It should be noted that if > 4) is true then 5) is true (assuming the validity of the rule). > > Now "traditionally" is a strange word as traditions can be current or very > long running. While there can be no doubt that in current Western society > April Fool's is a time for Jokes, if we examine the history of the day we > find things are not so simple. > > http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aprilfools1.html > > But even in the past those who referred to 1st April as "April Fool's Day" > made jokes and played pranks. It does not matter if 1) and 2) are different > claims or not. > > It is not hard to find evidence that some newspapers have printed false > headlines on April Fool's Day, so 3) is true. > > Now if 4) and 5) are one claim they must be false but this becomes circular > and generally unpleasant and IMO would cause the Rule to be invalid. So 4) > and 5) must be separate claims, if 4) is true and 5) is false there is a > contradiction, therefore it must be the case that 5) is true and 4) is > false. > > As such I reimpose the missing rescriction that 206:1 would impose. > > For this Round, each Rule must make exactly one claim that is false. The last sentence is false (otherwise the similar claim in 206:1 would become true, and 206:1 would then fail to meet the restriction). Thus the next-to-last sentence is also false. Anything explicitly labelled as a claim may be false. In the Judge's esteemed (*) opinion, the last sentence of 206:1 bears a sufficiently explicit label, but the next-to-last sentence of 206:2 does not. INVALID. +2.0 challenging to judge -0.5 repetition -0.5 length ---- +1.0 total I also add "+2.0 challenging to judge" to 206:1, bringing its total style up to the full +3.0 amount. (*) This claim may be false. -- Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com> "I'm not sure I can go through http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/ with it. Leave, I mean." -- Rule Date: 2003-04-05 19:30:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST