Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:
Originally posted by GarthB
Are you saying that the BRD does indeed include actual intrepretations in addition to the non interpretation descriptions of language? And if that is the case, how are the two differentiated. (I'm sorry, but my copies of the BRD only go to 2001, perhaps this is all handled differently in the newer editions.)
|
What I'm saying: I wonder if the Red Sox are ever going to lose a game.
You know exactly what I mean, and you are fooling not one soul on this Board who knows anything about your "history."
Read the introduction to the BRD, even in your antiquated edition. When I "interpret" a rule, I say so.
And you know that. As does everyone who owns a copy of the BRD.
Knock yourself out -- solo.
|
[/B]
Carl:
You obviously don't believe me, but I really did not know the answers to the questions I have asked you. I asked them politely, with no malice, to attempt to understand your first explantation of play 14-20.
I may be a bit dim today, but I have not acted out of anything but genuine curiosity. I regret that somehow it has angered you. I actually thought it would be better to get my questions answered than making assumptions. Had I not asked the first question, I would have assumed, as have other posters who you haven't gotten cross with, that you were making an interpretation. My faith on the BRD is actually renewed to discover that I and they were mistaken.
And, no, I have never read the introduction to any of my copies of the BRD....that is a mistake. I will do right after my football game tonight.
I may sincerely have questions after I read that. Would you prefer I ask them privately?
[Edited by GarthB on Sep 3rd, 2004 at 06:50 PM]