Rainbow Wolfe on Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:40:08 -0500 (CDT)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] BvS votes

> Proposal 102/2: Diplomatic Immunity (and double negatives) : Against
> This doesn't say what you're creating (yes, I can see it's a rule, but you 
> don't say so).
> Proposal 108/0: What A Silly Proposal [WASP] : Against
> Again with the "create."

Would the following be supplementary appropriate to the continuation of 
preserving the exactitude enforced within the precise unequivocal expression 
of the existing game?

"Generate an additional regulation in subdivision 'X': 'Y', of the document 
entitled 'B Nomic Ruleset'. This additional regulation is to exist with the 
designated title 'X' in addition to the subsequent delimited text:

This, to be used in the role of opposition regarding using the solitary 
distinct word 'create', or synonyms comparable to.
"Modify the currently functioning regulation numbered 'X': 'Y', to comprise 
the delimited text subsequent to this paragraph after first deleting the 
currently existing text that already resides in the field of the specified 


This, to be used with regard to synonyms with the purpose of existing by way 
of the denotation 'amend'.

"Eradicate the subsequent regulation from the document entitled 'B Nomic 
'X', 'Y'."
 This, being designed to be used as an alternative to the expression 
- RW
(and I don't doubt that this is too convoluted to be of any meaning except 
to me having just written it)


You forget one thing... I'm Captain Jack Sparrow.
spoon-discuss mailing list