Re: IPT 2nd nite on TV.

Ed,

Where is section 3.10 in complete contradiction to section 4.14? I
don't see it, but even if it is, 4.14 takes precedence as the opening
to section 4 states that the general rules (section 3) apply except
where contradicted by the Eight-Ball rules (section 4)...

--
Carter Adams
www.LeagueOperator.org

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
Mere moments before death, Jack Stein hastily scrawled:
Ed Chauvin IV wrote:

Why not just erase
all chance of an argument by making placement of the cueball by hand
the only way?

For what purpose?

To eliminate the potential for arguments.

There already is no chance of an argument without the rule.

And yet, here you are, arguing about it.

You're kidding, right?

You're the one arguing about it.

If you are allowed to touch
the ball with your stick outside of the act of shooting the ball, the
rule is ambiguous and there will (your protestations to the contrary
notwithstanding) always be the potential for someone to "position" the
ball with their stick in such a way that somebody might think they
were shooting the ball resulting in an argument.

Tell that to the BCA or WPA or any of the millions of people that do
exactly that every minute of the year with no arguments.

Millions of people violate the posted speed limits all over the world
every minute of every day. Does this lead you to believe we should
take down all the speed limit signs?

The only logical
reason to advocate ambiguous rules is to provide an opportunity for
cheating. Unambiguous rules should be the goal of anyone who doesn't
desire to have cheating occur in the game.

There is nothing ambiguous about section 4.14 of the BCA rule book. It
is abundantly clear, and refreshingly unambiguous.

Yes, and section 3.10 is equally unambiguous, though in complete
contradiction to section 4.14. Apparently, the BCA thinks the issue
is important when BIH is in the kitchen, and the opposite rule should
apply at all other times. This makes the rules ambiguous.




Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
    ... I do not see why using two crisp ... ball is red = 0.7 vs. ... the membership function *is* a possibility ... contradiction), but purely technically, less inference paths you ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
    ... I do not see why using two crisp ... ball is red = 0.7 vs. ... the membership function *is* a possibility ... obvious that contradiction and uncertainty ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
    ... > Galileo asked us to consider what would happen if the two balls were ... The smaller and lighter ball, ... > a contradiction was not allowed, ... Trivers twisted logic could only refer to mutualised exchange. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
    ... ball is red = 0.7 vs. ... Additivity ... contradictory inference (not to be mixed with inference from ... contradiction), but purely technically, less inference paths you ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: IPT 2nd nite on TV.
    ... the ball with your stick outside of the act of shooting the ball, ... Millions of people violate the posted speed limits all over the world ... desire to have cheating occur in the game. ... There is nothing ambiguous about section 4.14 of the BCA rule book. ...
    (rec.sport.billiard)
Loading