Re: Rules vs No Rules | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Michael D (ohanamd![]() |
|
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:29:53 -0600 (MDT) |
<< *Dogs should cause no harm to humans or their stuff* >> This is a statement of a value that probably most people would agree with. However, it isn't a rule. Rules include specific actions that are required or prohibited. Technically, effective rules also include consequences for violation, too. This could be turned into a rule by restating it as "Owners of dogs must take all necessary steps to prevent their dogs from causing harm to people or property" or "The owner of any dog that causes harm to any human or property must ____." Michael
- Re: Rules vs No Rules, (continued)
- Re: Rules vs No Rules Michael D, August 14 2000
- Re: Rules vs No Rules Sharon Villines, August 15 2000
- RE: Rules vs No Rules Rob Sandelin, August 15 2000
- Re: Rules vs No Rules Fred H Olson, August 15 2000
- Re: Rules vs No Rules Michael D, August 15 2000
- Re: Rules vs No Rules Catherine Owen, August 16 2000
- Re: Rules vs No Rules Berrins, August 17 2000
- Re: Rules vs No Rules Sharon Villines, August 18 2000
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.