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 locality. {{ }}" This, to be used with regard to synonyms with the purpose of existing by way of the denotation 'amend'. Finally: "Eradicate the subsequent regulation from the document entitled 'B Nomic Ruleset'. 'X', 'Y'." This, being designed to be used as an alternative to the expression 'remove'. - 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 spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss