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

From: david (whatever_at_davidnicol.com)
Date: Fri Feb 06 2004 - 09:31:06 PST

Next message: david: "Re: what the unexpected consequence in 221:e was supposed to"
Previous message: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: This is not rule 221:f VALID, +2.5"
In reply to: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
Next in thread: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

The _anecdotes_ are identical.  The _text of the anecdote_ was
edited for grammar, word choice, and punctuation btn the post and
the repost.   Was there a material difference in either the story
or the restriction? If there was I missed it.

Richard S. Holmes wrote:
> 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.
>

Next message: david: "Re: what the unexpected consequence in 221:e was supposed to"
Previous message: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: This is not rule 221:f VALID, +2.5"
In reply to: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
Next in thread: 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