Re: "we don't need no stinkin' rules"

[Bruce Rubenstein]

It's not semantics. It's simple logic. How can one consciously interact with something they don't know exists? (break a rule) Only the person who knows the rule exists can know that the rule has been broken.
Example: You come into my house and walk through the living room. You've just broken the house rule of not wearing shoes in the house. I tell you that you have to pay a $25 fine for breaking a house rule. You say, "Are you nuts? What rule?" Now you've broken one the forbidden house words rule, and I say, "Now you owe $50 in fines". You yell, "I'm leaving!", and walk out the door. I yell after you, "That's $75! You didn't say may I?"

BR

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

--The semantic argument we seem to be coming down to is whether "you need to
know the rules to break them";