Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0

From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.syr.edu)
Date: Thu Feb 05 2004 - 19:05:19 PST

• Next message: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: what the unexpected consequence in 221:e was supposed to"
• Previous message: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: anecdote 221:d INVALID, -2.0"
• Next in thread: david: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• Reply: david: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• Maybe reply: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Jesse Welton <jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu> writes:

> Shouldn't both of these be INVALID on the grounds that the two
> anecdotes 221:b are not, in fact, identical as claimed?
> 
> -Jesse

Good catch.  Validity judgement changed accordingly, and style award
for 221:d (1 of 2) reduced.

-- 
- Rich Holmes
  Parish, NY

• Next message: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: what the unexpected consequence in 221:e was supposed to"
• Previous message: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: anecdote 221:d INVALID, -2.0"
• Next in thread: david: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• Reply: david: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• Maybe reply: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

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