> Jane Williams wrote:
> > Can we find an example that doesn't get
> > re-interpreted as a single goal?
> >
> > erm....
> >
> > if I'm trying to simultaneously cook a meal and
> carry
> > on an intelligent conversation on a totally
> different
> > subject? To make life even more awkward, let's say
> > it's a phone conversation, so I need one hand to
> hold
> > the phone to my ear - the two activities do
> interfere
> > with each other.
>
> But isn't your contest here really "Trying to Do It
> All"?
No, here I'm only trying to do two things at once (well, unless you break down the cooking into all the separate activities). Assuming I fail, we need to know which I fail at: set the kitchen on fire, or mortally insult a friend?
> Once your
> lesser extended contests start getting nested like
> that (a big no-no according to the rules),
Then the rules need to get back in touch with reality. It happens.
> you reinterpret it as a more over-arching
> contest.
But you can't, not without being so vague it's useless.
> Here's a twister, though. What do you do if you've
> already started
> one extended contest, then another contest arises to
> complicate it?
OK, back where we were. I'm cooking, and the phone rings.
> I'm inclined to say that any subsequent contest acts
> as a modifier to
> the earlier one, but what if the subsequent contest
> clearly overshadows the former?
A good question, and one to which I have no answer.
Powered by hypermail