From: Karl Low (kwil_at_gmx.net)
Date: Wed Feb 04 2004 - 09:00:31 PST
Oddly, I believe both rules must be invalid. The reason being is this line:
> 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.
At the time he posted 221 e(1 of 2), please tell me where, exactly, is the
second posting?
My reasoning is that at the time of posting 1 of 2, the second posting
does not yet exist, hence posting 1 is invalid.
But if 1 is invalid, perhaps 2 can then be valid, as 2 would be starting
it, and there would be a second posting already in existance.
However, by R.O. 6:
If a fantasy rule is
inconsistent with itself, previously posted valid fantasy rules, or
the regular ordinances, then the Judge shall declare that rule invalid
or unsuccesful, otherwise e shall declare it valid.
221 e(2 of 2) is inconsistent with itself and previously posted VALID
fantasy rules, since 1 of 2 is invalid, so does not count. Hence, 2 of 2
is also invalid.
Karl
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:08:07 +0100 (CET), Richard S. Holmes
<rsholmes_at_MailBox.syr.edu> wrote:
> On even further reflection, I have no idea why I took such a muddled
> path to such an evidently correct conclusion. Must be because I
> hadn't had any coffee yet. Wait, I don't drink coffee.
>
> Anyway, the judgements stand, even if the explanation sucked.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST