On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 12:14 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > Also, it is a very bad idea to put SHOULDs into the rules which cause
> > things other than players or people to carefully consider their actions.
>
> Interpretation is performed by people.
>
> > (I remember when I submitt
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> Active would be "X wins the game"; passive would be "the game is won
> [by X]". "To win the game" is an infinitive which has no subject and
> is therefore neither active nor passive.
"To win the game" is an active infinitive. A passive infinitiv
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:16 AM, comex wrote:
>> and by replacing this text:
>>
>> This is the only way to win the game
>>
>> with this text:
>>
>> The game CANNOT be won in any other way
>
> I still object to this clause, under the argument that active verbs
> are generally better than
ais523 wrote:
> Also, it is a very bad idea to put SHOULDs into the rules which cause
> things other than players or people to carefully consider their actions.
Interpretation is performed by people.
> (I remember when I submitted the RBoA as a proposal with the wrong II,
> thus causing it to br
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 08:53 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > This breaks a huge number of rules. "[...] for which the question of
> > veracity is defined as UNDECIDABLE" in rule 2110 is one of the most
> > obvious, but the word "is" is common enough that nounphrase is
> > nounphrase i
ais523 wrote:
> This breaks a huge number of rules. "[...] for which the question of
> veracity is defined as UNDECIDABLE" in rule 2110 is one of the most
> obvious, but the word "is" is common enough that nounphrase is
> nounphrase is a very common combination to find in all sorts of rules.
> "Ea
comex wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>a) "X is/are Y"
>>b) "Y is/are known as X"
>
> "Any biological organism that is generally capable ... is a person"
> might fall under this. Probably doesn't, but there are other
> situations where phrasin
ehird wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2008, at 07:55, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> Proposal: Definition of definitions
>
> Where's the hidden dictatorship?
Well, I'm not going to /tell/ you, now am I?
(I hid "Murphy Wins" in the middle of a long proposal almost twelve
years ago, but it was caught and rejected.)
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 11:16 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >a) "X is/are Y"
> >b) "Y is/are known as X"
>
> "Any biological organism that is generally capable ... is a person"
> might fall under this. Probably doesn't, but there
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>a) "X is/are Y"
>b) "Y is/are known as X"
"Any biological organism that is generally capable ... is a person"
might fall under this. Probably doesn't, but there are other
situations where phrasing clearly not intended to
On 12 Dec 2008, at 07:55, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Definition of definitions
Where's the hidden dictatorship?
11 matches
Mail list logo
