Re: [s-d] [s-b] field action

[ihope <ihope127@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/02/2008, Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If you send this to the public forum in this form I will claim it
> inconsistent.

Yay, I made a mistake!

On 05/02/2008, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2008 9:06 AM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Consultation:  Are there an infinite number of kings?
> >
> > (Arguably, the repetition in Initialize doesn't proceed until the
> > Referee actually chooses the next batch of random numbers, in which
> > case the current match could be salvaged by way of the Referee
> > intentionally failing to do so.)
>
> This is Consultation #104. I assign it to Priest Ivan Hope.
>
> Oracle BobTHJ

I take the es-como-es approach and answer this Consultation NO, with
the Reasoning of "Adjacency for Field Objects is undefined." and the
Oracularity of "The initial placement of Kings is made the current
placement of Kings."

--Ivan Hope CXXVII
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss