Re: 209:5 -- INVALID, -1.5

From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 08:51:32 PDT


Steve Gardner <gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au> writes:

> On Wed, 21 May 2003, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 
> >  > Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour. But then maybe, just maybe you
> >  > have managed to break that spell with your brilliantly sarcastic first
> >  > rule. However, I fear that others will be unable to match your brilliant
> >  > "wit" in using what you have shown to be a formidable tool of
> >  > communication. So what to do? I really do believe that others will be
> >  > able to learn the mysteries of this quirky piece of language only by
> >  > picking apart its previous usage. As such all future rules shall make
> >  > comment on the sarcasm in previous rules.
> > 
> > Oh yeah, that was well-written.  Did you pick out the crayon yourself?
> > 
> > All future rules shall include a quotation of the last rule (valid or not),
> > so as to better make fun of it.
> > 
> > Furthermore, no rule shall prohibit or restrict /ad hominem/ comments.  What
> > fun would it be if we did that?
> 
> That last restriction is such a brilliant stroke that I am left almost
> speechless. How could it possibly be improved upon? Oh, I know: let's
> *require* each future rule to include ad hominem remarks. What could
> possibly be more fun than spending the Round insulting each other?
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Steve Gardner                   | 
> School of Computer Science      |      I've only just realized
>  and Software Engineering       |      how self-conscious I am.
> gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au   | 
> 
> -- 
> Rule Date: 2003-05-22 03:52:07 GMT
> 

Validity: Quotes not the previous rule but the rule before the
previous rule.  The previous rule was Steve's own, so Steve could
hardly be unaware of it, so a ruling of UNSUCCESSFUL cannot be made.
INVALID. 

Style: Invalidity is always unstylish.  In addition there's the fact
that this rule fails to obey the restriction of Steve's previous rule;
maybe Steve anticipated the latter's UNSUCCESSFUL ruling, but that
seems dubious.  The quoting of the entire previous rule may have been
due to the ambiguity of 209:3.  To forestall inflationary future
rules, I will interpret 209:3 as requiring only that a (significant)
portion of the previous rule be quoted.  -1.5.

-- 
- Rich Holmes
  Syracuse, NY
                  "We're waist deep in the Big Muddy
                   And the big fool says to push on." -- Pete Seeger

-- 
Rule Date: 2003-05-22 15:51:50 GMT


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