Sherlock wrote:
Murphy wrote:=0A> My interpretation is that "X shall perform action Y" is e=
quivalent to=0A> "X is required and allowed to perform Y exactly once", unl=
ess clearly=0A> indicated otherwise.=0A=0AHmm, that's a possibility. I sup=
pose my argument would be more appropriate if the rule said "may" instead o=
f "shall". We'll see what a judge says.=0A=0AHowever, this raises another =
potential CFJ: whether the garbled message on Friday was sufficiently cogen=
t to work, or if Saturday's message was the actual awarding of the title. =
There may or may not be timing issues related to this.=0A=0ASherlock=0A=0A_=
Sherlock,
If the above is an example of the "garbling" when read in the
archives, all of your messages have been garbled for quite some time
(I only play from the archives, should I CFJ that none of your messages
for months have been effective because they've been garbled to me?)
-Goethe
