Re: Re: Argument overridden

From: Paul Andrew King <paul_at_...>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:03:57 +0100

>
>
>Then problem I have with Paul's "no physical action" ruling is that there
>were no *narrative* elements to point to which I would say "yep, looks like
>he's up sh*t creek". instead it was a bald statement that it wasn't allowed.

If you read my explanation you would see that I explicitly stated that I based it on my reconstruction of the narrative and on how I assumed the swearing "attack" to work.

-- 
--
"The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of 
immortality.  More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals 
in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala 
Guide to Taoism_

Paul K.