| Jamie Dallaire on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:25:40 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject) |
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Elliott Hird < penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 23 Jan 2009, at 15:58, Jamie Dallaire wrote: > > [[pre-emption: ehird: BINA]] >> > > I really think we need Oracularities back instead I think oracularities might be nice too. But there are many ways of implementing changes that the priest can use (proposal, tweak, approve). Of course, they are slower or more prone to objection that were oracularities, so these might be useful to get back. But I think that those are separate questions. As is, a consultation like 168 should be answered SOMETIMES rather than NO, technically. That doesn't change the fact that the priest should submit an oracularity to fix the problem (in the case of 168, of course, it's not really a problem...). An oracularity is appropriate even if the answer isn't forcibly wrong. BP _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss