Re: 169:A

From: Anton Cox (A.G.Cox_at_city.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2001 - 03:56:50 PDT

Next message: Christopher Bartlett: "ROs"
Previous message: Gallivanting Tripper: "Re: 169:A"
In reply to: Gallivanting Tripper: "Re: 169:A"
Next in thread: Jesse Welton: "Re: 169:A"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Gallivanting Tripper wrote:


> What I meant was that RO 6a says that a rule can only be ruled unsucessful
> if it is "inconsistent" with a rule that the poster had not seen.  Since the
> first 169:14 was invalid, Aron's rule cannot have been "inconsistent" by the
> usual interpretation.

Ah yes - I had not appreciated that.

   Anton

--
Rule Date: 2001-10-03 10:56:03 GMT

Next message: Christopher Bartlett: "ROs"
Previous message: Gallivanting Tripper: "Re: 169:A"
In reply to: Gallivanting Tripper: "Re: 169:A"
Next in thread: Jesse Welton: "Re: 169:A"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

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