Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)

[Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> j wrote:
>
> > Next step: is there only one mack in existence?
>
> Macks have no rule-specified names.  Weapons are broken because 5E49
> explicitly says--
>
> No, wait, I claim the latest answer to 205 to be INCONSISTENT.  5E49
> explicitly says (a) that all Weapons have a name and (b) what the names
> of *types* of Weapons are, but never assigns names to *instances* of
> weapons.  Thus, by my "the OCB's name is Fred" precedent, instances have
> names but we don't know what they are.


Nah. Go check out my reasoning that the judge deferred to. If your reasoning
holds, then other attributes like Range, Lifespan, etc. which are critical
to a Weapon's functioning and which clearly (due to other language in that
rule) apply to the weapon rather than to the type, would be attributes of
the type rather than of the weapon.

i.e. if Rapier is the name of a weapon type but not of the weapon, then 10
is the Lifespan (don't know if htat's the actual number...) of the type but
not of the weapon too. Which makes no sense.

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