[Nomic] Rule five part 2

[David (Birch)]

Well, I could argue that no earlier rules contain large numbers, so we 
could just not revise them in that way. However, If you're still bothered 
by it, I'll revise that into the wording after collating objections. I'd 
quite like to pass this. it's fun to play with.

On Sep 28 2004, Adam Biltcliffe wrote:

> On Sep 28 2004, Adam Biltcliffe wrote:
> 
> > On Sep 28 2004, David (Birch) wrote:
> > 
> > > Once the stupid notice of consensus for now this rule is issued 
> > > eventually, new rules passed stand, providing, however, every fifth 
> > > word (not including words in the email title) is considered not 
> > > ignored, to exist if the Akanomic rule contains the word I "rule" in 
> > > its title. Remember, This rule only applies blindly to itself and 
> > > rules not containing higher numbers than three it.
> 
> I'm also worried at the phrase "this rule only applies to itself and 
> rules containing higher numbers then it" - does this mean that if we 
> revise, say, Rule 1 to incidentally mention the number five, it's 
> suddenly struck by this rule?
> 
> adam
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nomic-talk mailing list
> Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org
> http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk
> 

-- 
----------
dtb26@cam.ac.uk
phone number 07906 638541