@Thanee
QUOTE
How are you able to play the game at all?
As I would be so stupid and play RAW.
Just take a look at the "social rules"...
QUOTE
Nothing wrong there, but you really should be able to realize how weak (and that is quite an understatement still) your argument actually is.
Depends, what you define as "weak" I guess.
What was brought up against my point, short of "it is weak", "you are stupid" etc.?
Draco18s is the only one really trying, and he now to argues a printing is a program.
@Draco18s
QUOTE
The books aren't the output data of a computer program. They are the computer program.
The program as we see it may be the compiled binary and not the original source, but it is still code.
You are aware that paper/a book is not interactive?
If you want to see it as code, you end up with a code without any variable,pointer, loop etc.
Try changing words in the document, I assure you, other words won't be affected.
Sometimes it is helpfull to read text like code (or even rewrite it as such) to get an unterstanding. Thats mostly if there are used a lot of cases.
But "referance" for books has a completly different meaning than for programs. (Mostly due to the limitation of books and text in general)
In a sientific book I would need to state why the information I give is different from what is said in the reference.
So the work I do with the information of the reference has to be in the book. (As does the reason I come up with any information)
In a work of fiction, this would be quite silly to do.
Having one page written, why the rule is like it is, would be kind of annoying. (Helpfull to get the intention of the author so)
A program needs to have those parts. It has to work with what the input is.
This means: We can't have any idea in general what aspects of the information, he is refering to, the author thought to be important for his ruling and which he did not .
If you want to stay by the rules as written you can't argue suspected intention of the author.
You have to assume every word the author wrote was meant to be there and every word he did not write was meant to not be there.
So a reference has close to no standing against a directly written rule ingeneral. (This is something generally true in free writing)
For your interpretation you have to assume the author made a mistake. If you assume this, every bit of Raw could also be a mistake.
So to argue RAW you would first need to arguee that the wording of RAW was not a mistake. You would/could probably use the fluff to argue that, thus giving the fluff a higher standing than RAW, in a RAW discussion.