On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 9:25 PM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Would this ordinance have any "fighting chance" against the United
> States Constitution? One may say that yes, it would. After all, the
> Constitution is part of United States law, and the ordinance is also
> part of Unite
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 9:25 PM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Gratuitous postmortem arguments on CFJ 3796:
>
> I don't think it's necessary to bring Rule 217 into this at all; scams
> of this type simply can't work. I'll explain why I think that.
>
> Imagine that the city of Grand R
Gratuitous postmortem arguments on CFJ 3796:
I don't think it's necessary to bring Rule 217 into this at all; scams
of this type simply can't work. I'll explain why I think that.
Imagine that the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan enacts an ordinance
which states that, the United States Constitution
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 2:09 AM omd wrote:
> This leaves the text as "inconsistent", and Rule 217 informs us to
> augment it by the usual factors. In this case, "game custom" clearly
> supports higher-power rules taking precedence over lower-power ones.
> So does "common sense": the ruleset as a w
4 matches
Mail list logo
