| Craig Daniel on Sun, 8 Feb 2009 20:31:50 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Loose Interpretation League |
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Elliott Hird <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2009/2/8 comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>: >> On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Elliott Hird >> <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Not in the original contract. In comex's, yes, but Warrigal's is shall. >> >> In fact, Marr, my contract is not modified at all from Warrigal's >> except for the enemies list and the name. >> _______________________________________________ >> spoon-discuss mailing list >> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss >> > > Then your contract has the same: > > Losers shall not claim an answer made by an Enemy to be consistent > > Clear as day. What now, teucer? You don't think this is disruptive? Ah, you're right. Most of the stuff in there is should rather than shalls. _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss