Re: [s-b] As promised, a CFI

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Unfortunately, I think e's right about this.

Fortunately, I just used a different loophole to fix this.

Unfortunately, this destroys the Useless Card (whose image field 
doesn't describe an image at all).

Fortunately, it was a useless card anyway.

Formally:

I rule as follows on Personman's CFI:

 Ruling by Judge Wonko:: TRUE
 Judge's Analysis:: The plaintiff's reasoning is quite correct. It is, 
in my judgment, illegal for a card to exist that does not comply with 
the given definition of a card; thus, the cards supposedly created by 
r1903 cannot exist. The same is true of 'The Useless Card', whose image 
field doesn't describe an image.

--
Wonko

On Oct 27, 2004, at 11.01 PM, Jake Eakle wrote:

> Statement: r1903 did not create any cards.
>
> Plaintiff: Personman
>
> Argument: A card is defined by r1726 as necessarily containing a 
> description
> of a picture. None of the cards r1903 purported to create contained 
> such a
> description. Note that while r1726 does state that a card's text box 
> may be
> blank (though it would be stylistically preferable to list it as such 
> in the
> prop creating the cards, this is not strictly necessary), it does NOT 
> state
> that the picture may be similarly omitted from the card description. 
> While
> there is no rule against describing a blank picture, all card 
> descriptions
> MUST contain text describing the contents of the picture box. Because 
> r1903
> provides no such description, it failed on passing to create any cards
> whatsoever, no cards were added to the deck, everyone drew different 
> cards
> than those currently described by the current hand lists, no sequence 
> was
> laid down, and no one recieved any tildex for doing so.

"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever"
     -Anonymous

_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business