Re: [spoon-discuss] Mega-Proposal

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Dan Waldron,

> ^On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Wonko wrote:
>> 
>> In article 1, you have first 'repeal rule 33', then 'amend rule 33'. Then,
>> in the contingent article three, you attempt to repeal rule 33 again.
> 
> Oops I must have forgotten about the 'repeal rule 33' when I added the
> adapted version of rule 33.
> 
>> I would suggest simply keeping the modified form - otherwise we have
>> no method for determining precedence among mutable rules or among
>> Physical laws.
> 
> Don't we still have a "lower numbered rules take precedence" principle
> somwhere?  Or did we get rid of it.  I wasn't under the impression that
> chutzpah had seen a great deal of use.

We have the lower number part - it's in the Chutzpah rule.

-- 
Wonko

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