Josiah Worcester on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:42:05 +0100 (CET)


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

Re: [s-b] [s-d] Answer to Consultation 39 

On Friday 23 November 2007 14:12:14 Jamie Dallaire wrote:
> nttpf, pikhq

> > >
> >
> > I claim this is CONSISTENT with existing doctrine.
> > The AFO claims this is CONSISTENT with existing doctrine.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-discuss mailing list
> > spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> 


I claim that Consultation 39 is CONSISTENT with existing doctrine.
The AFO claims that Consultation 39 is CONSISTENT with existing doctrine.

The AFO proclaims itself to be a player for all to see.
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business