Re: anecdote 221:e (2 of 2) INVALID, -1.0

From: Richard S. Holmes (
Date: Wed Feb 04 2004 - 06:13:27 PST

david nicol <> writes:

> So I haven't played this game for like, a decade, and here I am in the
> thick of it.  The judge we've got this round appears to be taking his
> duties with less than the solemnity I naively remember.  In specific,
> he has made a big deal out of one of the players double-posting a play,
> and then later he referred to the second of the two identical postings
> as if they weren't identical.  So here's the deal: from here on in,
> anecdotes submitted for round 221, starting with this one, have to be
> posted twice.  The moral is, don't taunt the mentally ill: they have
> more free time than you.
> -- 
> david nicol
>                                          shift back the cost.

VALIDITY: It cannot be the case that anecdotes must be posted twice
starting with this one, AND anecdotes must be posted twice starting
with 221:e (1 of 2).  That is, there cannot be two different starting
points for the same requirement.  So one of these two anecdotes must
be invalid.  

Which one?  On reflection, I find it impossible to determine.  If this
rule is valid then the requirement of posting twice begins with this
anecdote, and this anecdote has not been *subsequently* posted again
-- but it was *previously* posted, so it has been posted twice, and
there's nothing in the rule saying future rules must be posted twice
*in the future*.

Of course this means I must withdraw my hasty judgement of 221:e (1 of
2); it could be that it was invalid, and this one is valid.

But let's assume I do that, and leave both of the 221:es unjudged.
Then three days from now, 221:e (1 of 2) will become valid by default.
At that instant, it will become obvious that 221:e (2 of 2) is

And since we know this will happen, why wait?  

221:e (2 of 2) is hereby judged invalid, and the judgement of 221:e (1
of 2) still stands.

STYLE: This anecdote loses david no style for double posting, since
it's now required, but it adds none either, having no new content; and
it does lose some style for invalidity.  -1.0.

- Rich Holmes
  Parish, NY

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