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

[Jeremy Cook <athena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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."

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