From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.syr.edu)
Date: Wed Feb 04 2004 - 06:13:27 PST
david nicol <whatever_at_davidnicol.com> 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. www.pay2send.com 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 invalid. 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