On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ============================== CFJ 1985 ==============================
>>
>> The first paragraph of Rule 1586 has no effect.
>>
>> ========================================================================
>>
>> Caller's Arguments:
>>
>> How can attempts to *be* something be unsuccessful?
>>
>> ========================================================================
>
> Proto:
>
> We can easily construct a hypothetical situation in which this
> paragraph is meaningful. Suppose that rule 9990 (Power=1) reads:
> {{
> The name of this rule is Foobar.
> }}
> and rule 9991 (also Power=1) reads:
> {{
> The name of this rule is Foobar.
> }}
>
> Since rules are defined by R2141, it follows that 9990 and 9991 would
> be rule-defined entities, and thus the entire text of 9991 would be
> invalidated by the first paragraph of R1586.
>
> FALSE.
I think you're missing the point. The exact restriction in the first
paragraph of R1586 is "Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same
name or nickname." Note the use of upper-case CANNOT, which by R2152
means that "Attempts to perform the described action are
unsuccessful." In your example, there is no attempt to perform any
action whatsoever, so it is unclear exactly how R1586 would have any
effect on the situation.
-root
