202:3 INVALID +0.5

From: James Willson (jkvw3_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Feb 14 2003 - 23:36:29 PST


--- Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Begging the question is what one does in an argument when one assumes what
> one claims to be proving.  This definition is taken from the Skeptic's
> Dictionary, and we all know that dictionaries are always right, right?
> 
> If you're going to claim that something is in the FRC Regulations, then
> you really ought to specify /where/ in the FRC Regulations it is.  (The
> definition given above is quoted verbatim from the URL
> http://skepdic.com/begging.html - main body of text - first paragraph.)
> 
> Future rules will contain exactly one line less than the previous rule,
> unless some previous rule contains exactly one line.  Brevity is the
> soul of wit, anyhow.
> 
> -- 
> Rule Date: 2003-02-13 06:04:19 GMT

202:1 says rules "should" suggest and instantiate.
202:3 says you "ought to" specify.
Are these requirements, or mere suggestions which can be ignored
without pain of invalidity?
Is there any difference between "should" and "ought to"?I think I'll read them
as requirements.  If this isn't how
things "ought" to be handled here in FRC land, we'll probably
have to fix it with a proposal, since I think I'm pushing the
three day judging limit here.  Anyway, by this reading,
202:3 is invalid since claims were made about things being
in the FRC regulations in 201:1.

INVALID; style +0.5

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

-- 
Rule Date: 2003-02-15 07:36:52 GMT


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