On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: > I didn't come up with "it came in on a scam, it should go out on a > scam" (IIRC I first heard it during a phone call with OscarMeyr a year > or two ago) but, having heard it, I agree with it (provided that the > scam clearly does work, i.e. does not rely on a retarded-monkey > interpretation; IIRC the scam that created it, once revealed, was > promptly agreed to have worked).
Wholly agreed. Though I might dig Steve, root and OscarMeyr up from the undead to help in the defense... back when conspiring on what to do with our power before the scam, Steve said "I just want to create the first power-4 rule ever". I don't think it occurred to em that it would last that long, and removed or not it will remain the first. FWIW, the scam that created it was (1) agreed to have worked by everyone, in fact there were no CFJs IIRC (except for a couple minor criminal proceedings because a couple very low penalty SHALLs on late timing and truthiness were broken) and (b) pissed off most non-scammers to no end -- though that may have been because the first stages of the scam stole a bunch of assets from them that were restored quid-pro-quo in the proposal that created the rule. Also FWIW, if I myself came up with such a new scam, I might in fact use it to amend said rule (at least, I've seriously considered it) ;) -G.
