Hello again; and George, thanks for pointing out that--
I did a poor job of saying what I was thinking when I said:
>Also, if I were Tree or others involved; I think I would find it very
>difficult to believe that a machine could be made to do *exactly* what Rule
>7 presently says!
As one example: Sub-Rules 1, 2, and 6 say "may be", while Sub-Rules 3, 4,
5, and 7 say "will be". It seems to me that the writers intended that some
judgement latitude would be exercised for 1, 2 and 6, but there is no
latitude for the others.
Also, it seems that the "2%" mentioned in 1. is not applied rigidly at
present.
Basically, I just meant that humans still need to be ultimately responsible
for the final say in some instances.
73, Charles - N5UL
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|