 |
|
soma
|
|
London
Jan 2002 time: 05:17
|
|
Ohh very strategic, IW. The obvious move after Stratford is South Kensington, thus leaving it open for you to go straight to Mornington Crescent. However, High St. Kensington is also valid, and blocks your next, gamewinning move!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Stefu
|
 |
CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Jan 1970 time: 07:17
|
|
quote: Ah, but you don't realize that we are playing using Brownian rules and not the antiquated Queen's Rules. |
Silly Imran! As everyone knows, Queen's Rules went out of general use in 1980, and with Beckingshouse addition coming enforce in 1987, it is natural that it applies to Brownian rules only! In fact, if we had been engorging in bit of nostalgia and using Queen's Rules, your move would have been proper, but now, alas, it's just bollocks. So nyah nyah nyah!
Uxbridge, Uxbridge. Any challengers for Uxbridge?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Stefu
|
 |
CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Jan 1970 time: 07:17
|
|
quote: Brownian rules, as everyone knows were codified in 1995, after the Beckingshouse addition and rejected it in turn. |
Oh. Now I see what's the problem. It's quite simple - you've confused Brownian rules with Oxford rules. Brownian rules, as everyone (but you, apparently) knows, came to use in 1978, quickly overthrowing Queen's rules and less-used Running Fox rules, but when some cheating buggers wanted to continue using Victoria's Gambit, not to mention the Dartmouth exception and Thousand Soldiers Marching combinative, they came up with Oxford rules, which have sadly gained some popularity. Brownian rules clearly define that Beckingshouse addition is in force, and you can see it yourself by digging out that rule book and checking out. If you own one.
Really. Confusing Oxford rules with Brownian rules. Dreadfully elementary.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Stefu
|
 |
CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Jan 1970 time: 07:17
|
|
quote: Sorry Stefu, now you are just making things up. |
That's rich, that truly is. Imran can't stand his pwecious victowy being shown the sham it is, so he has to resort to wild accusations. That's class, real class.
If we are going to point any fingers about making things up, the finger of blame falls upon Imran W. Siddiqui. I mean, not knowing about Beckingshouse exception and confusing Brownian rules with Oxford rules? Imran's showing blatant disrespect for this fine game, folks, blatant disrespect.
Now then! Uxbridge. Are there any challengers to Uxbridge?
(BTW, I'm thinking of starting a game thread on Straight Dope. Considering there might be people not knowing about finer points of the game, I might need few people to... well, get the game properly going. Do I have any willing DopePolytoners here?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Immortal Wombat
|
 |
in perpetuity
Dec 2000 time: 05:17
|
|
*sigh*
You're both wrong, actually, this clearly being a case of pro bonum eo cockus fumatrem, at which point we revert to the default rules as presented in PH's first post. To whit: If a dispute occurs as to the validity of a MC claim, due to a contradiction in the terms of the rules themselves (eg now) then The debators have three posts in which to argue their case, before the decision is left to a mediator (traditionally a Brit). You have both had your customary three chances to argue your case, and Stefu I'm afraid has hit the nail on the head:
quote:
If we are going to point any fingers about making things up, the finger of blame falls upon Imran W. Siddiqui. I mean, not knowing about Beckingshouse exception and confusing Brownian rules with Oxford rules? Imran's showing blatant disrespect for this fine game, folks, blatant disrespect.
|
Imran may stay in the game, but the claim is indeed invalid.
(In any case, we've haven't hit page three yet)
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17. Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|