Alex Smith on Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:23:59 -0700 (MST)


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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Assignments of Consultations 179-187


On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 01:41 +0000, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 2 Jan 2009, at 01:17, Charles Schaefer wrote:
> 
> > BLATANTLY incorrect? If it were blatant, there would be no  
> > consultation on
> > it in the first place. And consistent and inconsistent claims would  
> > not be
> > so close. I may be incorrect, but not blatantly so.
> 
> The inconsistent claims are mainly from people trying to break the  
> game from
> what I can gather.
> 
> fact is: this consultation does not have the power to arbitrarily  
> destroy
> those mack. Nothing has destroyed them, either. Therefore, they exist.

The consultation has no power to do anything. So stop worrying about
people calling it consistent.
-- 
ais523


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