Re: [s-d] [s-b] C Nomic

Jay Campbell on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:33:24 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] C Nomic

To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] C Nomic
From: Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:33:13 -0700
In-reply-to: <48EFE491.1050507@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <48EBD2EE.7000908@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <dbedf4da0810071452v38251457n43503f4e0a261bd4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650810100921r669d8ee0k3cc16500095941ca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <285c99840810101240p5a3c209fpfbc8c51f96903073@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650810101248u1a17e3b8ndd486861acebd1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <48EFE491.1050507@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)

I claim the answer to Consultation 131 is CONSISTENT. But I got us into this mess, so what do I know.




0x44 wrote:
> Jamie Dallaire wrote:
>   
>> Thank you very much. I guess you're right about the current proposals on C. I do think that 493 and 494 become redundant if they pass and the oracularity is then pondered, though.
>>   
>>     
> I claim the answer to Consultation 131 is CONSISTENT. Very nice work 
> with handling the B/C Game Object split.
>
>   

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

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Wrap up BlackCorp Motions
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Register
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] C Nomic
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] C Nomic
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread