$4,000.00 Reward
Joseph Crea Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net
Sun, 1 Mar 1998 22:42:39 +0000 (00888813759, 19980301224237.AAA538@LOCALNAME)
Hello, Casey & Ian and the rest of the "errant knights"!
At 10:37 AM 3/1/98 -0600, Ian & Pam Dorion wrote:
>> CASEY (3/1)
>> I like Ian's idea and I am going to modify my notices for a free one year
>> subscription to *TSR* to include the reward offer, also.
>>
>> I was wondering, howevever, if there would be any merit in slightly
>> modifying the conditions for winning the reward in order to reduce any
>> wiggling room a xian may mistakenly think he has. The following is what
>> I would propose.
CREA
Good idea. From what little I know of legal protocols, if a contract
comes under dispute (and is brought before a judge for arbitration), it is
(according to common law practice) to be interpreted ("construed" in
legalese) in such a manner as to place the greatest burden on the party
which wrote the contract. Common sense (or what the "reasonable" person
would do) goes out the window. In short, if speculation is not explicitly
excluded, then it must be deemed allowable.
CASEY
>> "Without adding or omitting a single detail from these separate accounts
>or
>> resorting to any speculation not specifically supported by textual
>evidence,
>> write a simple and noncontradictory chronological narrative of the events
>
>> that occurred between the resurrection and the ascension. (You must
>include
>> scriptural citations.) Describe exactly what happened first, second,
>etc.;
>> who said what and when; and where these things happened. The important
>> condition to the challenge is that not one single biblical detail be
>added or
>> omitted."
>
>IAN
>I think that is more like what the original reward was worded. We're going
>to
>have to get those who are offering the reward to get the wording straight.
With Mettaa,
Joseph Crea
<Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net>