| Ed Murphy on Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:11:04 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-b] Asplosion!!!!!! |
teucer wrote: > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> This answer contains inconsistency. > > I don't believe there's an Answer, in the rules-defined sense, to make > a claim about. So I'm not. > > I do, however, challenge the Public Display of the Ministry of > Questions on the grounds that it erroneously suggests the existence of > a Consultation 207, and that even if there were such a Consultation > I'm not sure the text thereof would be as specified on said PD. I believe said PD is already correct. Rule 5E36 does not require a Question or Statement to be delimited in any particular fashion. I claim that Priest Codae's answer to Consultation 207 is consistent. Rule 5E33 does not require the Body of a Proposal to be delimited in any particular fashion. _______________________________________________ spoon-business mailing list spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business