From: James Willson (jkvw3_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 11:58:00 PST
--- "Richard S. Holmes" <rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu> wrote: > > My own misguided efforts reminded me of that which I tend to forget, > which is that you get into trouble talking about rule x being > inconsistent with rule y; what you really need to consider is whether > the proposed rule set is inconsistent -- it may be, even if no two > rules are inconsistent with one another. > Quite right. Whoops. Fortunately it is going to fail. Does anyone else think there is something odd about 201:1 being valid? No VALID fantasy rule in this round may be consistant with all of the restrictions in this Fantasy rule. If it disobeys this restriction, then it is invalid. If it obeys this restriction, then it disobeys another of its restrictions, making it invalid. I'm not sure how to procede, but I'll try this 201:3 >>>>> Keine UNZULÄSSIGE Phantasierichtlinie ist mit dieser Beschränkung gleichbleibend. Höchstens Hälfte der GÜLTIGEN Phantasie werden Richtlinien in eine Sprache geschrieben, die vom Latein abgeleitet wird. Höchstens erwähnen zwei GÜLTIGE Phantasierichtlinien Potentiometer. >>>>> __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com -- Rule Date: 2003-01-24 19:58:24 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST