Re: [s-b] [s-d] Consultation 203

Tyler on Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:03:25 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-b] [s-d] Consultation 203

To: spoon-business <spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-b] [s-d] Consultation 203
From: Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:03:19 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=7yPLnmEoYOV5nvSzl09rE1HtcQNfp/A0E9pBWguOGQU=; b=bSe2HgaW5aM7ubjHPpWs7BxVvVfqDiq45NkFmL2BNVEkqg6AfsvAmOfw3Ok0ddh71g QvpY2yF3L+sIfXvFbFvapLrFYKyRDpR5iIUYdq3cOr9eTQQw2F0Pfj6wILmKupHSKjlv 27VXJiQMthcatguYivq2DQ5SkyTqD5++0+KyU=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=GiI3g+bdnEitDDWzQGFJmmA5T2FW2v8nQjndmTTvC1f6GaEu+pj5G0YwDEDK9LPio4 urQTwE68u/yGI0D4sHmtObbRYgPjRVjYrvnBDHP+390Phov7PCVgyzoTdPUYzCLrM+7y iWrQbvqS9oXQ6e8k3HatRpR29K/S8cF1Xrf6A=
In-reply-to: <1232996827.9252.26.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <497D07BE.6060706@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <9E0D5C97-DF7D-4A86-A1A5-05885CE8F3BD@xxxxxxxxx> <497DF12E.90902@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <6A8DBCEC-0DE8-48D1-B2ED-3291CE16E742@xxxxxxxxx> <497DF9D7.805@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <04FF73DD-BC6B-4D3E-8DE7-76BA2C3EA7CE@xxxxxxxxx> <dbedf4da0901261043w7fd4b5c9xcbde4509114c089d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1232995672.9252.25.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <dbedf4da0901261104g6ae2d606iae322c5b14558446@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1232996827.9252.26.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

In that case, I claim the Answer to Consultation 203 to be INCONSISTENT.
This overides my previous claim. (I checked the Rules.)

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 12:04 -0700, Tyler wrote:
> > Oh, so you mean that Rule 57 allows Contracts to specify activites (which
> > are necessary to amend the Contract), and thus makes those activities
> > specified indirectly by the rules?
> Yes. So rule 5e10 makes them possible as a game action.
> --
>  ais523
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>



-- 
 -Tyler
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business

References:
- [s-b] Reassignments
  - From: Ed Murphy
- Re: [s-b] Consultation 203
  - From: Elliott Hird
- Re: [s-b] Consultation 203
  - From: Ed Murphy
- Re: [s-b] [s-d] Consultation 203
  - From: Tyler
- Re: [s-b] [s-d] Consultation 203
  - From: Tyler

Prev by Date: [s-b] Asplosion!!!!!!
Next by Date: Re: [s-b] [s-d] Priest assignments
Previous by thread: Re: [s-b] [s-d] Consultation 203
Next by thread: Re: [s-b] Consultation 203
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread