I'm not certain where you are getting your definition of "example" from but it's not from the ASLRB.
What other parts of the ASLRB are you choosing to exclude? The index? The charts?
Can you play simply by examples? Of course not, that's a facile statement to make.
Where 2 possible interpretation of a rule exist and there is an example, then that example illustrates how the rule is to be played.
The examples, just like the index, are a part of the rules.
I could ask the same of you, just where are you getting your definition of 'example' yourself, because there is NOT one in the ASLRB anywhere not one in the index. I got my definition from the dictionary, where else is there to look? Certainly not the in ASLRB, unless there is some nook or cranny I am missing.
How do you justify saying 'the examples...are rules' other than waving of hands and pointing to the index, which is an entirely separate matter from examples? The index is not an example, it's an index.
It's clear one can argue that examples are part of the rulebook, when it's obvious that the rulebook has printed examples. That's what they are: EXAMPLES, not RULES.
[By the way, you skipped over the most salient argument, because there is no counter to it:
one CAN play ASL without examples by only using rules. That's equally facile to say, and equally true. All you did was pick apart that 'it's facile to say one can't play only with examples', while ignore the most important part of the point. Yet by doing so, you argue that examples are indeed not rules!]
What isn't true is that the examples themselves are rules. They are simply there to illustrate rules. That's the pertinent point to address. There are many many place in the ASLRB of rules referring to examples, in order to illustrate a complex point in the rule itself. That's why rules are more important; examples don't carry equal weight, they are just sample illustrations of the rule.
Discussion of 'excluding charts and the index as rules' are not relevant to this discussion of examples. I'll take that debate up with you elsewhere if need be, but both have been talked about before, this I know.
If you choose to ignore the root use of examples as used in English everywhere else on the planet and decide that examples are something different for the ASLRB, you have no justification for doing so on the basis of anything said in the ASLRB. It's just hand-waving. Not unless you find such a citation in the ASLRB itself, and then I'd be very interested in reviewing the passage!
