Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Exploit exploit

2009-07-10 Thread comex
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > You're half right, but you're missing my point.  What I'm saying is that > the second mention of the "exploit" refers to the exploit on the card in > the player's hand.  So right now, it reads that "If a card has an exploit" > (which  is true, I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Exploit exploit

2009-07-10 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> The scam? As I said in an earlier email, the articles and clauses >> are a little unclearly placed but hardly strongly supporting comex's >> interpretation, and you'd need very strong support as the intended >> reading is abundantly cl

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Exploit exploit

2009-07-10 Thread Sean Hunt
Kerim Aydin wrote: > The scam? As I said in an earlier email, the articles and clauses > are a little unclearly placed but hardly strongly supporting comex's > interpretation, and you'd need very strong support as the intended > reading is abundantly clear. The intent is irrelevant. The actual

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Exploit exploit

2009-07-10 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, comex wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: I also intend, without objection (independently), to ratify the following (definitively) incorrect document: { The first pa

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Exploit exploit

2009-07-10 Thread Sean Hunt
Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, comex wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> I also intend, without objection (independently), to ratify the >>> following (definitively) incorrect document: >>> >>> { >>> The first paragraph of Rule 2256 reads as follows: > > Just

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Exploit exploit

2009-07-10 Thread Sean Hunt
comex wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> I also intend, without objection (independently), to ratify the >> following (definitively) incorrect document: >> >> { >> The first paragraph of Rule 2256 reads as follows: >> A player CAN play a card in eir possession which

DIS: Re: BUS: Exploit exploit

2009-07-10 Thread comex
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > I also intend, without objection (independently), to ratify the > following (definitively) incorrect document: > > { > The first paragraph of Rule 2256 reads as follows: >      A player CAN play a card in eir possession which has an exploit by >  

DIS: Re: BUS: Exploit exploit

2009-07-10 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, comex wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> As Grand Poobah, I deal the following cards to the following players >> (bootstrap deals): > > Rule 2256 (Exploit Cards) reads: > > If a card has an Exploit, a player CAN play a card in eir > posse