Re: [s-b] Consultation 52

Jamie Dallaire on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:40:33 +0100 (CET)

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

Re: [s-b] Consultation 52

To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [s-b] Consultation 52
From: "Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:40:29 -0500
In-reply-to: <44e5a2650711260937s63b75babi3f98b30a2c5ea92a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <474AC66D.9060106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <B12CC871-30D2-46E1-BDED-EE5760980472@xxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650711260937s63b75babi3f98b30a2c5ea92a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On 11/26/07, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I would like to see a priest submit a ruling on Consultation #42 arrive at
> an answer through a different route, and perhaps even specifically address
> the Consultation 52 controversy.
>

Similar problem exists with #48 as with #42. Priest Codae should address
these.

Billy Pilgrim
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business

References:
- [s-b] Consultation 52
  - From: 0x4461736864617368
- Re: [s-b] Consultation 52
  - From: Daniel Lepage
- Re: [s-b] Consultation 52
  - From: Jamie Dallaire

Prev by Date: [s-b] Assigning Proposals
Next by Date: Re: [s-b] Consultation 45 Answer; Blueprint
Previous by thread: Re: [s-b] Consultation 52
Next by thread: Re: [s-b] Consultation 52
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread