| Antonio Dolcetta on Fri, 8 Feb 2008 01:37:20 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization |
On 7 Feb 2008, at 22:44, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Feb 7, 2008 9:33 AM, ihope <ihope127@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 07/02/2008, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> This is Consultation #105. I assign it to Priest Ivan Hope. >>> >>> NOTE: This consultation can only be found to be YES. If it is >>> found to >>> be NO, then it would not be a consultation, since both the message >>> that called it and this message include the text of the quasi- >>> proposal >>> "Enough Already!". >>> >>> Oracle BobTHJ >> >> I answer this consultation NO, with the Oracularity of "All proposals >> with the title of Enough Already! as well as all Consultations >> numbered 105 are destroyed." If this Consultation didn't exist, >> wonderful; if it did exist, now it doesn't. >> > I claim this answer INCONSISTENT, as I despise that which shall not > be named. > > BobTHJ > I claim the answer to Consultation 105 to be Consistent _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss