From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 07:46:10 PDT
Jesse Welton <jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu> writes: > --- begin 185:2 --- > > Nothing in this rule is true. This is a stupid rule, and obviously > INVALID. Blatant self-inconsitancy merits low style; therefore this > entire untrue rule is defamatory to its author, me. Under rule 185:1, > the Judge must therefore rule it VALID. I further request a style > award in the amount of 3.0 points in compensation, to be deducted from > the style of the offending rule's author. > > --- end --- JUDGEMENT: This rule correctly asserts that it is INVALID, as would any rule be that makes the claim "Nothing in this rule is true." STYLE: Blatant self-inconsistency merits high style, sometimes. (+2.0) As does knowing how to spell "self-inconsistency". (-0.1) -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY -- Rule Date: 2002-05-30 14:46:24 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST