On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 12:30 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification >>> is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to interpret the >>> *current* >>> rule as excluding readily-available information (as long as it's >>> *referenced* >>> at least indirectly by the publication in question). -Goethe >> >> "published during the voting period" seems pretty unambiguous to me, >> as stupid a criterion as it is. If Rule 478 didn't define what it >> means to publish something I could be persuaded that readily-available >> and referenced counts as "published".
You missed the critical first part of that rules sentence. Information. INFORMATION. "Information" is *not* merely the words in the message, it is something that informs. If you publish (during the voting period) a clear and adequate reference to something that may be outside that period, but is reasonably available to the other players during the voting period, you are publishing "information during the voting period" which clearly allows the result to be resolved. If, as you claim, you don't allow *any* references to outside material, you'd have to publish a dictionary every voting period. And a grammar guide. And maybe a kindergarten curriculum. Clearly absurd even under the *current* Rule. (Note: I'm not taking a position on whether in this particular instance the information is adequate and available, I'm just pointing out the folly of taking "information" to be "only the character strings in the message with no context or reference"). -Goethe (Number 2).
