On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:44 PM, omd wrote:
> Here's a question.
>
> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contest
> (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because
> its backing document defines its existence.
>
> If oblique references from other rules ar
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> Note that "class" isn't actually defined by the rules. It could just
> as easily be "type", or even "set". If the rules state that something
> is a class of asset, that doesn't really tell us anything we didn't
> already know.
Here's a question.
Note that "class" isn't actually defined by the rules. It could just
as easily be "type", or even "set". If the rules state that something
is a class of asset, that doesn't really tell us anything we didn't
already know.
Now, here's what the key thing to realize is, as I see it. An asset
only exis
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 8, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > No, the operative phrase in currency is "class".
>
> "Ribbons are a class of fixed assets."
> - Rule 2199
>
> So a particular Ribbon is actually in two distinct classes o
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 8, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> No, the operative phrase in currency is "class".
"Ribbons are a class of fixed assets."
- Rule 2199
So a particular Ribbon is actually in two distinct classes of asset...
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Warrigal wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> >> > > The asset defined is not "white ribbon"; it is "ribbon". Every ribbon
> >> > > then has a color. A white ribbon is a ribbon whose color is w
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Warrigal wrote:
>> > > The asset defined is not "white ribbon"; it is "ribbon". Every ribbon
>> > > then has a color. A white ribbon is a ribbon whose color is white;
>> > > even though the rules stop using t
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 09/08/2010 12:07 AM, omd wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> > > The asset defined is not "white ribbon"; it is "ribbon". Every ribbon
> > > then has a color. A white ribbon is a ribbon whose color is white;
> > > even though th
On 09/08/2010 12:07 AM, omd wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Warrigal wrote:
The asset defined is not "white ribbon"; it is "ribbon". Every ribbon
then has a color. A white ribbon is a ribbon whose color is white;
even though the rules stop using the term "white ribbon", white does
not c
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> The asset defined is not "white ribbon"; it is "ribbon". Every ribbon
> then has a color. A white ribbon is a ribbon whose color is white;
> even though the rules stop using the term "white ribbon", white does
> not cease to be a color. (Likewise,
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Warrigal wrote:
>> While this does result in White Ribbons not being needed for a
>> Renaissance win (as White is no longer mentioned in the rule), it does
>> not result in White Ribbons ceasing to exist, as t
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> While this does result in White Ribbons not being needed for a
> Renaissance win (as White is no longer mentioned in the rule), it does
> not result in White Ribbons ceasing to exist, as they are never
> destroyed and are still implicitly defined.
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Keba wrote:
> Proposal "White Renaissance" (AI=1, II=1, distributable via fee)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2199 "Ribbons" by removing:
>
> (except for White Ribbons, which can be awarded at any time
> within a month after they are earned)
>
> [So, no one posses
Am Dienstag, den 07.09.2010, 17:06 -0400 schrieb omd:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Keba wrote:
> >> Why were White Ribbons removed in the first place?
> >
> > See CfJ 2836. White Ribbons only exist because of that phrase, if this
> > phrase is deleted, all white ribbons are deleted as well.
>
Am Dienstag, den 07.09.2010, 17:06 -0400 schrieb omd:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Keba wrote:
> >> Why were White Ribbons removed in the first place?
> >
> > See CfJ 2836. White Ribbons only exist because of that phrase, if this
> > phrase is deleted, all white ribbons are deleted as well.
>
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 17:06 -0400, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Keba wrote:
> >> Why were White Ribbons removed in the first place?
> >
> > See CfJ 2836. White Ribbons only exist because of that phrase, if this
> > phrase is deleted, all white ribbons are deleted as well.
>
> Yeah
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Keba wrote:
>> Why were White Ribbons removed in the first place?
>
> See CfJ 2836. White Ribbons only exist because of that phrase, if this
> phrase is deleted, all white ribbons are deleted as well.
Yeah, why did their regular definition get removed? I like them
Am Dienstag, den 07.09.2010, 16:20 -0400 schrieb omd:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Keba wrote:
> > Proposal "White Renaissance" (AI=1, II=1, distributable via fee)
> > {{{
> > Amend Rule 2199 "Ribbons" by removing:
> >
> >(except for White Ribbons, which can be awarded at any time
> >
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Keba wrote:
> Proposal "White Renaissance" (AI=1, II=1, distributable via fee)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2199 "Ribbons" by removing:
>
> (except for White Ribbons, which can be awarded at any time
> within a month after they are earned)
>
> [So, no one posses
19 matches
Mail list logo
