Jamie Dallaire on Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:04:37 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization

On 2/5/08, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2008 5:24 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 2008 2:02 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > from 4E41: ''This applies to specific references to Rule 4E41 or to a
> set of
> > > Rules or a block of text containing it....''
> > >
> > A rule section is neither a set of rules nor a block of text that
> > contains 4e41. It is simply an identifier for certain rules.
> And that text is comment text so it doesn't actually do anything. I
> fail to see the reasoning on how BobTHJ's actions are illegal.

OK. I agree about the comment text. I should have thought of that before
submitting the proposal. But (and this argument would only hold its own if
it weren't comment text, anyway) I don't see how a section of the rules is
not a block of text. The text of the various rules in a section is strung
together end on end, like a block, and the rule describing sections even
specifies that rules may be "contained in named Sections". Therefore the
section is not merely an identifier, it is actually something that holds all
these rules together. In a block.

spoon-discuss mailing list