From: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) (jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com)
Date: Mon Jan 13 2003 - 19:29:54 PST
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Karl Low wrote: > To be honest, the numbering was just my mistake. I was aware of 200:3. So > if not VALID, this is INVALID. > > I was also of the opinion that 200:3 is valid through one interpretation of > 200:2, while 200:4 would be valid through another interpretation, both of > which could be maintained at the same time as 200:2 does not specify any > interpretation over another - nor for that matter does 200:4 specify that > its interpretation supercedes that taken by 200:3. That is, you could have > a rule exactly 200 characters long, have a rule that contains the phrase > Leonard specifies, and if 200:4 was judged VALID you could also have a rule > that contained an official FRC celebratory balloon; and any of these would > be valid. > > (And should anybody manage to do all three at once, give'em a super-style > bonus :-) ) > > Karl I see... Well, I can see your point of view after thinking about it a bit further. You actually add two new methods of satisfying 200:2 without forcing one to take precedence, as I had originally interpreted. I'll revise my decision to valid. -- Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) -- Rule Date: 2003-01-14 03:30:10 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST