From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: Fri Feb 14 2003 - 23:43:59 PST
James Willson <jkvw3_at_yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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.) > 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. You're saying that 202:3 imposes a requirement that 202:1 does not follow, hence 202:3 is inconsistent with 202:1, hence 202:3 is invalid. Okay, I follow that. But what if "going to" implicitly restricts the scope of 202:3's requirement to future rules? -- 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: 2003-02-15 07:45:07 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST