|Orc In A Spacesuit on 27 Apr 2003 02:56:01 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Who wins?|
From: Rob Speer <rspeer@xxxxxxx> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 07:27:13PM -0500, Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:I honestly don't understand what you're saying here. I'm guessing that you're saying that I can't make something a rule, because a rule has to be created, like your ham sandwich. If this is the case, then, to use your analogy, I'm not creating a ham sandwich from scratch; I've already got most of it (the charter), sitting there for a while; I'm just sticking in the ham and mustard to make it a full ham sandwich.Okay. Let's go into the hypothetical world where your action worked. You made a rule out of other stuff. Just like creating a ham sandwich, you created a rule. But you can't do that, because the rules don't let you create a rule except in certain ways.
Really? Where? I see where it says rules can only be changed/created as explictly or implicity described /anywhere/ in the ruleset (R11 & R18), and I see one explicitly described way to change the rules (R15.G), but nowhere does it say that this is the only way to create a rule. The circuit breaker (R851) creates rules too. R578, as I showed elsewhere, implicity descibes a way.
Anyway, someone else found a better reason why it doesn't work - something about changing the Ruleset.
That other reason was "you can't change the ruleset except as stated in the ruleset"; funny thing is, R578 /is/ in the ruleset. So it's implicitly described method works.
Orc in a Spacesuit _________________________________________________________________STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss