[ASLML] CX

[Bruce Bakken]

>
>Alas, it's down once again to
>personal interpretation of
>the word "case" in "worst
>possible case" (A7.52), and
>the word "detrimental" (A.15).
>

Alas, indeed.  Here we've taken a perfectly good and normally clear phrase 
("worst possible case", everyone knows what that means), and plunked it into 
a rulebook which sometimes likes to use its own speech code and other times 
is not sure what language to use.

In my opinion, there is no interpretation required.  Since A7.52 made no 
attempt to qualify the meaning of the word "case" here, I intend to 
interpret the common way.

>As written, the rules clearly
>support absolute cumulativity
>with respect to Hindrance,
>TEM, and CX. (I have no
>idea why Cowering is
>included.)
>

Or CX, for that matter.  There is no accumulation of CX, which can never get 
above +1.

>
>It is my belief, that although the rule as written actually
>*strenthens* cumulativity, it was *meant* to lessen it.
>They *really* screwed this one up!
>

It only apparently strengthens cumulativity, if you read it incorrectly.  I 
agree, the rule is screwed up.  And by the way, did anyone notice that this 
paragraph is talking about LOS?

>
>It makes sense (to me) that the whole FG will, as a whole,
>suffer the worst DRM suffered by any one of its component
>members. "The chain is only as strong as its weakest link",
>if you will pardon the cliche.
>

It makes sense to me, too.  I see no problem with your conclusions here.

A7.52 talks about LOS and lists specific instances that apply to an 
individual member.  A.5 seems to imply "total cumulativity", as you say.  I 
have always interpreted A.5 and A.17 to apply to the DRM of a single unit, 
and then the worst possible case (common usage) applies to the FG.  Anything 
else strikes me as unduly severe.

>
>I am, at this point, committed to submitting a quality,
>all-inclusive, Q, or series of Qs (no idea how to do it
>with one, definitive Q), to Perry - I'll keep everyone
>up-to-date and I will cc the reply/replies to the ASLML.
>

Okay, go for it!  But only if it _really is_ a _quality_, _all-inclusive_ 
question!  :-)

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

>Christopher
>"No deer yet, but I've seen four -
>two were definitely does, the other
>two I have no idea because of excessive
>(cumulative!) Hindrances to the target!"
>;-)
>Fleury
>Sgt. Meikle's Bunker
>Mountain View Cottage
>Lewis, NY
>USS Iowa; BB-61
>Camp Dudley #12557
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
>From the hottest toys to tips on keeping fit this winter, you’ll find a 
range of helpful holiday info here.  
http://special.msn.com/network/happyholidays.armx