Re: [s-b] [s-d] Concerning the AFO.

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

pikhq:

You stated in a subsequent email that you "retract" all consultations. Was
that intended to include this one submitted on behalf of the AFO? Shall I
ZOT it?

Billy Pilgrim

On Nov 23, 2007 1:44 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I am afraid that, as is the case with the prior consultation submitted by
> the AFO, I am unsure as to whether it is valid. I will await the settlement
> and ponderation of Consultation 39 to assign a number and priest to this
> consultation.
>
> Billy Pilgrim
>
>
> On Nov 22, 2007 10:00 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > pikhq wrote:
> >
> > > It seems that in agora-discussion, I had one person support me joining
> > the
> > > AFO, and two people with conditional support for the same. . . The
> > conditions
> > > have been met, so I am a member of the AFO.
> >
> > This is correct; I missed that comex had supported it (it was worded as
> > "I support the triply-quoted intent" and appeared in the midst of some
> > other stuff not related to the AFO).
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-discuss mailing list
> > spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business