Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 170

Craig Daniel on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:40:12 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 170

To: "discussion list for B Nomic" <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 170
From: "Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:40:07 -0500
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=5Q4CnIYXfv25a9KLSFUDfuJkV8LDx4mBTVL0EM4cEBE=; b=K2+LHpilzKnjGvAhwDFF/vLd10VyCXdJBF8xsIGtJo9o43TXujWQbachG41K8Us9VP Z818gMITDuy/QtAqkBZTKaLNRw/cfdNpt3XsLQobf0lHO09rcfiGMlYF8sacqfI3+psh MsAtcoxCOa760RHrI+g8mnc/O/PI2ZIxhKe68=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=OdQZbNdifIjSPsYMpngj/T678C102z0b235XGFhClbJ0NNBcLYQt+2R3Gp6WzM8LwV CYzRx6Qz80S9sAQawzzCTru48ZQAzBCZ6e39LMtWV+/sIbIPn4oE0EIyWw7/NbdFcJOp CAUd7Pn3TwydyUQ5PhUaYEjHXnYw2OCOyZilE=
In-reply-to: <44e5a2650812181036x8689bdex51f7600a6deaa824@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <BAY126-W4566172F9ECAB7DCF6970C85F30@xxxxxxx> <0EE251BC-8D76-4D10-8B79-0BE04A159C1D@xxxxxxxxx> <55b258c20812181023w203c412dn9a2e6654adef6ede@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650812181036x8689bdex51f7600a6deaa824@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Jamie Dallaire
<bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

I can't make one, being the Supplicant.

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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 170
  - From: Jamie Dallaire

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 170
  - From: Craig Daniel
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 170
  - From: Jamie Dallaire

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] ram
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 170
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 170
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 170
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread