Ian Kelly wrote: >Should I then be expecting a refutation of my proto-judgment of CFJ 1660?
I'm not entirely happy with your reasoning on those CFJs, but actually I was pondering refuting your proto-judgement of CFJ 1659. I think prohibiting a word or phrase from having contextually-defined meanings is an unreasonably strict interpretation of R754. I haven't formed an opinion yet on whether your judgement is wrong or whether R754 is genuinely unreasonably strict. Anyway: I see CFJs 1659-1660 as being purely about the definition of words and phrases. Quite different from the issues in defining game entities. -zefram
