Re: Judgement 180:4 INVALID 0

From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Sun Mar 31 2002 - 04:59:09 PST


Aron Wall <aron_at_wall.org> writes:

> 0 - cute to have self-reference, but you should have thought about the
> other rules with the word redefined and what the effects would be,

I did, and rule 180; 2 becomes

  A rule containing the word Splitsplotsplinksplonk shall never have
  its description [The bracketed one] after it.

If the judge will kindly explain how he's trouble making sense of the
above, I can perhaps clarify.  I contend it does make sense; that it
is consistent with all previous rules; and that 180:4 ought to be
rejudged VALID.  But I will withhold a proposal to that effect until
the Judge clarifies his ruling, in case I'm missing something.

--
- Rich Holmes
  Syracuse, NY

--
Rule Date: 2002-03-31 12:59:21 GMT


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