Quote:
Originally posted by the vindictive geezer
Again, Chuck, if the clock does start, how can you possibly avoid using R2-10 in this situation? There's no rules justification to use anything else.
|
The goofy namecalling is funny, but in all seriousness, I guess I just don't see why a tick of the clock automatically makes this a 2-10 correctable error. Falling under 2-10 or not doesn't have anything to do with the clock running, does it? (Obviously, I realize that the clock running is relevant to whether you can correct a 2-10 error. That's not what I'm asking.)
If the clock runs, why can't we just say the timer allowed the clock to run improperly? This would be a simple timing mistake. We're allowed to correct a timer's mistake if we have definite knowledge of the time that elapsed. So why not do that here?
Quote:
|
And R2-10-5 won't let you put time back on the clock.
|
As I said, the whole point of my approach is to avoid 2-10, b/c it yields a stupid result.