RE: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Nweek 51 RESULTS

["SkArcher" <SkArcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: spoon-discuss-bounces@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:spoon-discuss-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Glotmorf
> Sent: 22 October 2003 18:30
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Nweek 51 RESULTS
>
>
> On 22 Oct 2003 at 13:05, Daniel Lepage wrote:
>
> > I use some of my many style points (and no score points) to create a
> > t-shirt, the text of which is the word "foo" fifty times.
> >  As per r154.b.5, "A player may, instead of creating a Style Attribute
> >
> > on emself, create a T-shirt with the desired text, at a cost of three
> > style points per word of text plus five score points." Thus, the cost
> > of my purchase is one hundred and fifty style points; I gain 50 words
> > of text on the t-shirt, and 250 points for myself.
> >
> > I propose:
> > {{
> > __Whoops!__
> >
> > In r154.b.5, replace the text "at a cost of three style points per
> > word of text plus five score points. " with "at a cost of five score
> > points and two style points for the shirt, plus an additional three
> > style points per word of text." }}
>
> Tsk.  Do I really have to CFI this? :)

It's another of those ambiguous bracket situations isn't it?

at a cost of (three style points per word of text) plus five score points.

vs.

at a cost of three style points per (word of text plus five score points).


now, is there any way of gramatically arranging brackets to imply that Wonko
should lose 5 score points per word of text?


SkArcher

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