Jeremy Cook on Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:23:17 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[s-d] Re: [s-b] Work is sucking the lifeforce from me--I mean, more than usual

On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:18:02PM -0500, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2004, at 10.00 PM, Jeremy Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 02:29:54AM -0500, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> >>> I rule TRUE on the cfi. While it is true that there are many many
> >>> examples of card games where cards which are laid down don't leave 
> >>> the
> >>> player's possession, or even in some cases the player's hand, there's
> >>> still one thing they have in common--it's awfully hard to lay cards
> >>> down which have already been laid down without picking them back up
> >>> again. Common usage is a necessary evil, and it's certainly 
> >>> applicable
> >>> in this case. As picking the Cards up is not otherwise allowed for by
> >>> the Rules, and the act of picking the Cards up would modify the game
> >>> state, I'm going to have to rule that it can't be done.
> >>
> >> For reasons I've explained in a series of earlier posts, I Recall
> >> Shenanigans on this CFI.
> >
> > What were those reasons again?
> >
> > I rule FALSE on this CFI. r1726 makes the general claim that all cards
> > must have an Image. r1903 makes the specific claim that there exist
> > cards without one. I rule that such a specific claim does not 
> > contradict
> > a general claim, by analogy with the following paragraph from r33:
> >
> > "The unconditional permitting of an action is a Blanket Permission. The
> > conditional prohibiting of an action is a Specific Restriction. A
> > Specific Restriction for an action is not considered to be in conflict
> > with a Blanket Permission for that action, unless the implementation of
> > the Specific Restriction eliminates any possible circumstance in which
> > the action can be performed."
> The CFI I was Recalling Shenanigans on was entitled "CFJ on Wonko" and 
> was on the statement "Wonko did not succeed in laying down eir sequence 
> of Green, Blue, and Indigo more than once."

Oh yeah. I'm not a legal Appellate Judge on that, since I'm the Plaintiff.

Anyway, what were the reasons?

spoon-discuss mailing list