Re: DIS: argument against

2009-01-12 Thread Alex Smith
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > 2. Since these clauses are only triggered when the rules make a > future event (including a time limit) contingent on a past event This is the crux of the matter, I think. The question is about what happens if something is a time limit but no

Re: DIS: argument against

2009-01-09 Thread Alexander Smith
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > 2. Since these clauses are only triggered when the rules make a > future event (including a time limit) contingent on a past event This is the crux of the matter, I think. The question is about what happens if something is a time limit but no

Re: DIS: argument against

2009-01-08 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:10 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote: >>> comex and I weren't scamming the paragraph you were scamming, in that >>> case. The takes-precedence paragraph (the second-last) includes >>> "requires", as do

Re: DIS: argument against

2009-01-08 Thread Alex Smith
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:10 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > > comex and I weren't scamming the paragraph you were scamming, in that > > case. The takes-precedence paragraph (the second-last) includes > > "requires", as does the third paragraph; however, our scam

Re: DIS: argument against

2009-01-08 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > comex and I weren't scamming the paragraph you were scamming, in that > case. The takes-precedence paragraph (the second-last) includes > "requires", as does the third paragraph; however, our scam was based on > the paragraph and subsections between those, w

Re: DIS: argument against

2009-01-08 Thread Alex Smith
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:49 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > ugh. I'm now so convinced my scam didn't work I can't quite stand to > not post the argument and see wrong ones. Sorry if this spoils some > fun, here's the argument, any refutations? > > The section of the Holiday rule in question is only

DIS: argument against

2009-01-08 Thread Kerim Aydin
ugh. I'm now so convinced my scam didn't work I can't quite stand to not post the argument and see wrong ones. Sorry if this spoils some fun, here's the argument, any refutations? The section of the Holiday rule in question is only triggered if a Rule "requires" something be done by a certain