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

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 3, 2004, at 11.05 PM, Jeremy Cook wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:42:26PM -0500, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 2004, at 10.23 PM, Jeremy Cook wrote:
> >
> > > > The CFI I was Recalling Shenanigans on was entitled "CFJ on Wonko" 
> > > > and
> > > > was on the statement "Wonko did not succeed in laying down eir
> > > > sequence
> > > > of Green, Blue, and Indigo more than once."
> > >
> > > Oh yeah. I'm not a legal Appellate Judge on that, since I'm the
> > > Plaintiff.
> > >
> > > Anyway, what were the reasons?
> >
> > Here was the important reason; there are at least a dozen messages 
> > from
> > various players devoted to this, but this was the important part:
> >
> > =======
>
> [argument of CFI snipped]
>
> No, I was asking: what was the reason you appealed a CFI ruled in your
> favor?

It wasn't ruled in my favor:

---------------
 Judge Araltaln's Judgment

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.
---------------

But I don't buy this argument, so I appealed it.

--
Wonko

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

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