On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > Note that A has purportedly a rule to the effect of "text within > [[ and ]]" - can someone please explain why they think that B is > broken on this issue but A is not?
Quoting myself for the win: [17:37] <comex> here [17:37] <comex> this is why I refuse to believe the comment text breakage bullshit: [17:37] <comex> http://www.google.com/search?q="between+quotation+marks"; [17:37] <comex> http://www.google.com/search?q="within+quotation+marks"; [17:38] <comex> NO FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WE DON'T HAVE TO BE HYPERLITERAL ABOUT EVERYTHING [17:38] <comex> it just breaks half the world and yes a is severely broken [17:38] <comex> we don't have to do an Agora and consider the best interests of the game etc, but we can also stop pretending the rules are written in lojban Go run those searches and find me a single result that refers to b in "a" b "c" as within or between quotation marks. Where we are defining our own entities, we can assume literality, but where we are dealing with existing entities-- characters in text-- we should assume, unless the rule says otherwise, that the reader is not a retarded monkey and the same conventions and implications exist in the Rule text as in any other mode of communication.
