On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:17 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:09 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, in other words, the Monster may change the rules, and so I CAN > > change the rules, but I may not change the rules so R101(i) says I can't > > change the rules after all? I'm not entirely certain I follow that > > logic, or that it makes sense. (If you think I CAN but MAY NOT change > > the rules, I suggest a criminal CFJ, but I don't think that's what you > > think.) > > No, I believe the Monster CAN but MAY NOT change the rules, that that > you therefore CANNOT do so as you CAN only cause the Monster to do > things it MAY do.
Ah, so you think "may"="CAN" in one rule and "may"="MAY" in the other? I think that interpretation leads to many even worse scams; it would, for instance, allow me to get the Monster to do anything I liked that was legal, whether possible or not. (In particular, the ID-numbering of CFJ 1 should have worked under that interpretation.) -- ais523
