From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: The Goobers Subject: Re: Philosophers Date: 1998/01/28 Message-ID: <34CFDD2F.4621@erols.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 320206757 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <34a991f0.2379476@news.diac.com> <6ankdf$5h8@clarknet.clark.net> <01bd2c40$b62837a0$7261b693@HP5079Q> Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: docdwarf@erols.com To: dogmat Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@erols.com X-Trace: winter.news.erols.com 886037864 17533 207.172.134.93 (29 Jan 1998 01:37:44 GMT) Organization: BudNy Organisation Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dogmat wrote: > > docdwarf@clark.net wrote in article <6ankdf$5h8@clarknet.clark.net>... > > > As I recall Calvinball had rules... just not *consistent* rules. I > > believe you now have to stand still and sing the 'I'm So Very Sorry' song > > now or I get fifteen ghost points. > > Well, just to quibble, I would say they were consistent (at any one time). > Its just that > the players had the ability to change the rules on a dime. Consistency was > always > a valid argument in protesting a rule. Its just that the argument never one > because another > rule would be invented that resolved any so-called inconsistency. It all > made perfect sense. Your quibble is acceptable if and only if consistency is something which occurs at a point ('at any one time'). If one needs a line, curve, or more complex construct in order to gauge consistency then your quibble is quickly, quite querulously, quashed. DD