rychenroller
Active Member
Sounds like a tech problem to me.
Rule Clarification
- Thread starter Jasonguru
- Start date
Sounds like a tech problem to me.
The only thing stupid about the paragraph is when people like you read too much into it trying to look intelligent. As for your reference to lawyers looking at it, any lawyer who agreed with your interpretation of that rule would be one I would gladly go against.
"Any game or series which cannot be completed"..... Seems pretty obvious to me that it could be completed as the other bowlers did complete their games.
Stop trying to interpret rules to suit yourself and read, yes actually READ it, and understand what it says.
Maybe take your own advice!
For the SLOW people, yes that is JUST YOU GoTheCell! READ MY RESPONSE! I was NOT talking about the OP (original post)! Your comment is now TOTALLY redundant. Oops Sorry!
After your totally off track comments and total lack of information pertaining to the context in which my statments where made, next to you, a gold fish is intelligent. Therefore, in respect to people like you, I do not need to try.
Have fun!
nice attempt at a comeback but much like other people on here you try and dodge the issue. You called the rule stupid and tried to look intelligent by interpreting it to suit yourself.
Now explain to me how it is a stupid patagraph. It is very clear cut. Either they can continue to bowl or they cant. This isn't a case of whether or not they want to, it is a case of whether or not they can.
My comments related directly to your post whether you admit it or not.
I stand by my comment - actually read it, not just glance at it.
Now explain to me how it is a stupid patagraph. It is very clear cut. Either they can continue to bowl or they cant. This isn't a case of whether or not they want to, it is a case of whether or not they can.
My comments related directly to your post whether you admit it or not.
I stand by my comment - actually read it, not just glance at it.
$$Pricey$$
meh.
ooooo, catfight!!
lol
lol
Lmao. You think i am unreasonable. here's unreasonable. i have just found out through the standing sheet, not from anyone in the league committee, that the last 2 game have been allocated as a blind score to our team with no notification after bowling last sunday without any issues but not being advised of this me thinks is extremely unreasonable and typical of circumstances coming out of ashmore bowl.
i want to take this further but have no avenue as this was against the so called league president and then the association secretary posts comments like this. ridiculous. this is just out and out garbage and a total showing of a pathetic lack of common sense. the match should be rebowled in full but i and my team won't be bothered because we won't stoop to the pathetic level this has gone to.
WHAT A JOKE YOU ALL ARE!
No I gave a valid reason as to what would be deemed a valid reason as to not continue.
I already have and as I can see you need the information spoon fed I will endeavour to spoon feed you.
Here come the aeroplane ... !
Now that I am back online (THANKS OPTUS!!), I can (once again) explain why the clause is, in my opinion, inappropriate! (Again, for the slow – yes, again, that is just you GoTheCell).
What it boils down too, is that, the substring ‘for any reason’, leaves open the possibility for misinterpretation and ambiguity! Now, let’s look into it.
1. Introduction
2. Redundancy in purity.
2.1 English
2.2 Mathematics
3. Why GoTheCell is a tool
4. Pure is Redundant ... so what’s the problem?
5. Conclusion.
1. Introduction
I will endeavour to explain what the issue is with clause 323 in the TBA rule book, so that even dumb-asses (sorry the only person this refers too) can understand. As stated earlier the issue arises from the addition of the substring ‘for any reason’. I will also endeavour to show why GoTheCell is a tool.
2. Redundancy in purity
In its pure form the substring in question is actually (like GoTheCell) redundant and as such, if left out of the clause, the clause would be acceptable.
2.1. English
Let’s look at it in pure English terms.
The substring does not add information nor does it limit information. This then by definition makes the substring redundant.
If, for example, a match cannot be completed, one can safely assume that a reason exists. Now let’s see if the clause adds information, ‘for any reason’, well any reason encapsulates the reason the match could not be completed. Unfortunately no, it does not add information.
Does the substring narrow the reasons that can be applied to the interruption of the match? If any reason can be applied then, no, it does not narrow the reasons that can be applied.
Now, as the last example, if you take out your textbooks and remove the offending substring, does the pure meaning of the clause change at all??? Again, no, the meaning does not change. Therefore the substring has been shown to be (like GoTheCell) – redundant.
2.2 Mathematics
Let the set of possible reasons (Sr) contain all possible reasons the match cannot be completed. Let the set of ALL possible reasons be Sa.
From the offending substring, one can now infer Sr = Sa. Now take any particular reason {r1,r2,r3,...rn} and see if it too is an element (or subset) of Sa, wow, it is.
So if, Sr = Sa and {r1,r2,r3,...rn} = Sa then Sr= {r1,r2,r3,...rn}.
Therefore even in pure mathematical terms the substring is redundant.
3. Why GoTheCell is a tool
Unfortunately, due to the numerous redundant posts by GoTheCell on TB, one can only come to the conclusion that GoTheCell has become just like his posts, redundant. Unfortunately, no further evidence is required to confirm that GoTheCell is a tool!
4. Pure is Redundant ... so what’s the problem?
Yes, in its pure forms the substring is redundant and taken in it pure form should not affect the clause. However, it is rare in nature to find anything in its pure form. Air is not pure, water is not pure and least pure of all are humans. As soon as reasoning (the thing that makes us human) becomes involved, the purity is all but destroyed. By allowing the offending substring in the clause, this is what makes the clause now ripe for interpretation and ambiguity.
Take for example, BRETT WILLIAM LIND V. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA.
IN SHORT: Upon crashing his vehicle the hospital took blood and gave to police. The petitioner fought on the grounds of the definition of what constitutes ‘for any reason’ in the clause that allowed the blood to be taken and handed over to police. The judge was required to define what ‘for any reason’ was to mean in this case and the judge ruled that ‘for any reason’ is to be deemed as ‘for medical reasons’. This subsequently did not help the petitioner as it validated the taking of blood and handing over to law enforcement.
However what this case shows is that, the clause was under scruitiny and had to be interpreted by a human (the judge). If for example, there was a different judge on this case (maybe the one that presided over OJ Simpson
) the interpretation MAY have been deemed to be different, maybe even enough to rule the taking of blood unconstitutional and hence illegal.The example case is irrelevant here, what is relevant is that, interpretations have been made for ‘for any reason’, in the past. As there will be different people interpreting at different times for differing cases, then there will ultimately be differing interpretations for the same clause. Hence, by definition, this then makes the substring ‘ambiguous’.
5. Conclusion
From this expose, we have come to 4 conclusions.
1. If the clause did not contain the offending substring, the clause is fine.
2. GoTheCell is a tool.
3. The addition of the offending substring allows the possibility for interpretation and ambiguity.
4. If you still need further information on why I believe the clauses is inappropriate there is no help for you.
Hope this help, as if it doesn’t, you’re on your own!
You know, the more you try and look intelligent the more you do the opposite.
If you bother to actually read the rule in it's entirety and not just one little piece (because that is all your few brain cells can handle at a time) then you would see there is NO ambiguity at all.
RULE 323 INTERRUPTED GAME
Any game or series which cannot be completed on the pair of lanes assigned in the league schedule, for any reason, may be transferred.......
Seems pretty straight forward to me. Like I have been saying all along, it isn't a case of whether or not the bowlers want to complete it, it is a case of whether or not it can be completed.
Only an idiot would conclude that any reason included whether or not they didn't feel like bowling, their wife yelled at them before they left, they don't like lane 13...and so on.
You really need to grow up Fitzy.
If you bother to actually read the rule in it's entirety and not just one little piece (because that is all your few brain cells can handle at a time) then you would see there is NO ambiguity at all.
RULE 323 INTERRUPTED GAME
Any game or series which cannot be completed on the pair of lanes assigned in the league schedule, for any reason, may be transferred.......
Seems pretty straight forward to me. Like I have been saying all along, it isn't a case of whether or not the bowlers want to complete it, it is a case of whether or not it can be completed.
Only an idiot would conclude that any reason included whether or not they didn't feel like bowling, their wife yelled at them before they left, they don't like lane 13...and so on.
You really need to grow up Fitzy.
Never mentioned any of the above.
Obviously my post was too hard for you to get your head around ... take some time, read a few more times and a light may switch on!
All has been explained and no further comment is necessary!
The end.
No, it is not so clear cut as many of you think it is. It depends on how you interpret rule 323! Try to get a lawyer to comment on the rule!! they will first look with absolute horror
It is quite frankly, a stupid paragraph.
The only thing laughable is the fact you think that.
Challenge for you Fitzy. Lets decide this once and for all.
Go find a lawyer prepared to post on here (complete with name etc) that that clause is ambiguous like you say and I will publicly apologise on here for anything I have said about your interpretation so far.
BUT, if you can't find one who agrees with your interpretation and is prepared to look as stupid as you do then you shut up and crawl back into your little hole.
A lack of a response will only make the hole you have dug yourself into all the much deeper.
I look forward to your response.
