Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Exceptio Probat Regulam

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 15:23 -0500, Craig Daniel wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal, entitled "The Exception Proves the Rule":
>>
>> {Create a rule, entitled "Exceptio Probat Regulam", with the following text:
>> {If the rules specify a specific instance of a phenomenon but are
>> silent on the more general examples, the phenomenon does not generally
>> apply. [[eg, the fact that Wonko of the 4th nweek of the nyear is
>> Agoran Silly Hat Day means that no other day is Agoran Silly Hat
>> Day.]]}
>>
>> /* The things about the rules this changes are few and far between;
>> most of them are being made to more explicitly conform to the common
>> sense interpretation that I'm sure we all believe in anyhow. For
>> example: Rule 5e2 states that "All Ownable Game Objects have an Owner,
>> which is either a Legal Entity or Nobody." Currently it could be
>> argued - falsely, I think - that Nobody owns the Unownable game
>> objects. After this rule passes, they explicitly lack an Owner, even
>> Nobody, rather than implicitly lacking one.
>>
>> I was originally going to go find things where this changed something
>> other than making the common-sense interpretation explicitly correct,
>> and twiddle the ones that wouldn't benefit from such a change - but
>> honestly I can't find any. I looked. */}
>>
>> I'd love suggestions for a better way to phrase the EPR rule, btb.
>
> Wouldn't this make the Laser Sharpener work? As far as I can tell, it

Yes, but I believe the Laser Sharpener already works and there is thus
no change of state.

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