On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > Firstly, R101(i) is apparently nonsensical. The word "wilt" can be > used as the second person singular present tense of "will", but in the > rule it is not used in the second person at all, and in any event this > usage is archaic, and thus not the ordinary-language meaning. Thus we > must conclude that the word in the rule means "droop" or "become > flaccid". Even here, the sentence is grammatically incorrect, but > generously taking it as an R754(1) synonym for "wilts", this gives > every person the privilege of doing what e causes to be flaccid, which > is anatomically problematic at best.
ROFL. Truly. Thank you for that. -G.
