Re: [s-d] [s-b] Unrest update

Geoffrey Spear on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:19:48 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Unrest update

To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Unrest update
From: Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:19:42 -0500
In-reply-to: <4999D828.5050800@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <653283240902160706r39e016b5nc8db3854ba50a365@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4999D828.5050800@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Any of the ones stating "set the rules to <set>" ought to overwrite
> the previous ones.

But I "gather" them and implement them.  To me this doesn't imply any ordering.
-- 
Wooble
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Unrest update
  - From: Cassie Bayer

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Unrest update
  - From: Ed Murphy

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Unrest update
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] An Immodest Proposal
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Unrest update
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Unrest update
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread