[blml] Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

Richard, I really don't know what you are trying to do here.

You are talking about exceptions to rules, and whether this proves or 
disproves the rules.

But what we were talking about (and I forget about which thread you 
are talking about in this specific instance - it's not important) are 
not rules, but advice to players. Or actions of those players. Or 
things that will happen when the TD arrives at the table.

No rules, no general statements. Just statements about what is likely 
to be happening.

In cases like that, exceptions are expected. And we should look at the 
bigger picture, and make decisions about how many exceptions there 
will be when one statement is issued, and how many when some other 
statement is issued.

So when I say that, in general, a certain way of ruling will be 
expected, there is no use in you telling us that once, in 1980, a 
different ruling was issued. Because my statement already admitted 
that there could be exceptions, and one exception in 25 years is 
hardly worth talking about - in fact, my words "in general" should be 
altered to "in an overwhelming majority of cases".

So you may talk philosophy as much as you want, I will return to 
talking about bridge laws ...

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Herman De Wael, "De Whale" thread, 18th April 2007:
> 
>> As I've often said, there is no discussion as to the laws, just
>> as to the frequency with which the exceptions prove the rule.
> 
> Michael Quinion, World Wide Words, Exception That Proves The Rule:
> 

[irrelevant and snipped]

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be