Re: rule 231:6 (VALID, +2.7 style)

From: Ed Murphy (
Date: Fri Jan 28 2005 - 23:22:33 PST

On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 05:45, Bert Sevenhant wrote:

> Dear Ed Murphy,
> Dear bd,
> Dear David L Nicol,
> Dear Jonathan Van Matre,
> and other esteemed members of the FRC,
> My quest to understand the degrees of members is getting more intriguing.
> I found that there is a geographical representation of the degrees.
> Each degree can be identified with a place on the globe.
> A degree placed more east than an other is considered to be greater.
> If two degrees are on the same meridian, they are considered both greater
> and lesser than each other.
> (This representation was the conclusion of a talk called
> "the projective plane used to represent degrees of the FRC",
> held to an audience of earth scientists.)
> The next poster should explain which is the 6th degree
> or give the position of degree Q on the globe.
> Degree 2 (New York) is higher than degree 1 (Los Angeles) (and Q).
> All future rules should refer to a scientific talk.
> Bert Sevenhant (deg. 2)

No problems, despite being increasingly counterintuitive.  VALID,
+2.7 style.

+1.0 Follows theme
+1.0 More specific about comparisons
+0.5 Follows own restriction on future rules
+0.5 Increasingly counterintuitive
-0.3 Three counts of awkward grammar

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