Re: [s-b] [s-d] Consultation 45 Answer; Blueprint

[Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry... I claim the answer to CONSULTATION 45 INCONSISTENT with the Cwn.


----- Original Message ----
From: Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 4:10:20 PM
Subject: Re: [s-b] [s-d] Consultation 45 Answer; Blueprint

The "Rat Hole and Shampoo Store" is hereby renamed the "First and Only Portrait of Wooble as the First and Only Heinz."

The "First and Only Portrait of Wooble as the First and Only Heinz" is hereby renamed the "Cwn."

I take the Miniministry of Prophecy (if it exists and is Vacant).

Codae

P.S. nttpf


----- Original Message ----
From: 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 3:40:06 PM
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 45 Answer; Blueprint

I object, it is unfair to rat holes and shampoo stores to compare them
to Consultation 45.


Justin Ahmann wrote:
> I claim the answer to Proposal 45 to be INCONSISTENT with the "Rat Hole and Shampoo Store," where Claims of (in)consistency claim (in)consistency between a Consultation's Answer and the "Rat Hole and Shampoo Store."
>
> Codae
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: B Nomic business <spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:26:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [s-b] Consultation 45 Answer; Blueprint
>
> ttpf
>
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>  
>> On Nov 25, 2007 11:08 AM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  
>>    
>>>> A)
>>>>
>>>> {{
>>>> Is it true that any player can define a blueprint?
>>>> }}
>>>>      
>>>>        
>>> This is Consultation Number 45 and I assign it to Priest Wooble.
>>>    
>>>      
>> I answer YES.
>>
>> While the rules don't explicitly allow the creation of Blueprints
>> except by the Artisan, they don't forbid it, either.  Everyone who
>> voted to foolishly repeal the Monopoly Rule may kick themselves.
>>
>>  
>>    
> INCONSISTENT with established doctrine
> This topic has already been discussed to the point that it's not even
> funny anymore.
>
> Shame on you Wooble!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>  

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