|
Craig Daniel on Fri, 30 Mar 2012 07:13:17 -0700 (MST)
|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: New Rule
|
- To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: New Rule
- From: Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:13:05 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=vHZPKKYfkjJCWJrSGdiBdcqj9vwbkW70bUBvcmMRERc=; b=XXoTq5jBRXLSJiosNNX1sh6VK2QfgV1l/JIPoTnB+V7xrQvY1yV3updtB+nCaNp1+9 1wyiWBCHebbelkt2khrj/jJeAFHkqJiLeEe60GSejIFHoQLmUmsBc2yyILoiqKTz8WKy oK6Xj7IEbQaTsbLQm0jllvOI6Nk81FqwEvfhs/+xozBDlwcONnJGIjqEQZb18AFFpBIx yu499suxN49VS4rs92LNcRS9I2zynmsN/tyaPFkGYMo202Bo1IOyow0OfpMoyXYSWsMv NywOSgCNFVAbYsRaMa3uBJOE4KJJggI/O1SnKQRA9/N3T6T3wPd5dDQCpnb+JpG80pmQ rzAw==
- In-reply-to: <CAAxyauA7uDn=KFCik2zwY4Lk7ghXcHGLBS-hFBBkcFvEF1+aNg@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAHd7M8=e0gfFmeif8M1Sf8fZ8hPzUd13tKDVgS1kQ=86v5Amhw@mail.gmail.com> <CAAxyauCun3SQu6ZeCbXKExDJUtHUT8jgcZyudPwJ+aaU+jttXg@mail.gmail.com> <C0358626B5C04947828C17437566FF24@indistinct.org> <CAAxyauCfd3tiZUYR2NaE7J62rg5JYcdV2L23Wpt_Oqc8u=P+pA@mail.gmail.com> <4F74C395.2040507@socal.rr.com> <CAAxyauA7uDn=KFCik2zwY4Lk7ghXcHGLBS-hFBBkcFvEF1+aNg@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Elliott Hird
<penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 29 March 2012 21:18, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Maybe.
>
> Agreed. The statement enters the records of ambiguity.
I think if a new nomic ever gets started up here, it needs to accept
both this and the 1st-era "You are all fucking nuts" judgement as
precedential even if it inherits no other element of B's alleged
history.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss