[s-b] Let's get this sorted out...

[M P Darke <darkemalcolm@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

In that case, I never could have had a Well-Sharpened Pencil, therefore
I should have ten Macks more than I currently have, so your argument
falls to bits.

--- On Mon, 2/2/09, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-b] [s-d]  Let's get this sorted out...
To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, 2 February, 2009, 11:40 PM

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Marr965 wrote:
>
>> In addition, if the answer overall proves to be NO, this will force
retroactive changes to the gamestate, which is not allowed.
>
> It will do no such thing.  If anything, it will reveal that
 the
> gamestate was different all along from what we thought it was.

Indeed. It will force recalculation of a variety of facts about the
gamestate, but in doing said recalculations we'll be making our
knowledge of the gamestate reflect what it always was.

I find the answer to Consultation 205 CONSISTENT, if I haven't already.
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business


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