From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 08:08:19 PST
"Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)" wrote: > > I really hate to throw yet another proposal out there, but I feel I need > to establish this precedent with regards to the requirement of 196:3. > 196:3 states: "make all eulogies shorter than those before them". Since it > doesn't state the all eulogies must be shorter than the one eulogy > immediately before it, we must assume that the eulogy must be shorter than > the combination of ALL eulogies that came before it. This seems like an extremely forced reading to me. It's like saying that I'm shorter than my parents, because their combined height is greater than mine. > Below, I've provided a character count of all of the rules up to and > including 196:8. Carriage returns have been treated as a character for > this count. > > 196:1 - 462 > 196:2 - 1016 > 196:3 - 438 Hmm, this brings up another issue, though: In what way is 196:2 shorter than 196:1? If 196:3 requires all rules (as opposed to all future rules) to be shorter than those before them, then for 196:3 to be valid, 196:2 must be shorter than 196:1. If there is no identifiable way in which 196:2 is shorter than 196:1, one solution is to treat 196:3's suggestion as non-binding. Another is, as Alan suggested, to apply the restriction strictly to the eulogistic portion of each rule. -Jesse -- Rule Date: 2002-11-15 16:08:37 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST