| Jamie Dallaire on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:36:42 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 170 |
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Elliott Hird > <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 18 Dec 2008, at 17:30, James Baxter wrote: > > > >> I answer YES to this consultation as the answers to consultations must > be > >> in keeping with previous consultations or they will be declared > incosistent > >> and become invalid, thus making all consultations that do not follow > >> previous precedent untrue. > > > > INCONSISTENT; misses the point. > > I'm actually going to have to agree, looking at the Arguments. Is that intended as a claim of inconsistency? If so, nttpf. If not (either way really), good point bringing up C. 129. _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss