Re: [s-b] Consultation 67 answers

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I claim this Consultation is CONSISTENT.

--
0x44;



Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2007 9:08 AM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   
>> Consultation:
>> {{
>>     Is declaring Consultations 64, 65, and 66 for being irrelevant or
>> otherwise unworthy valid?
>>     Unbeliever: comex.
>> }}
>>
>> As MoQ I assign this consultation number 67. I appoint Wooble Priest.
>>     
>
> I answer Consultation 67 "Yes".
>
> The Oracle's action in ZOTTING a Consultation as "otherwise unworthy"
> is always valid.
>
> I submit the following Oracularity is support of this Answer:
> {{
> BEGIN TRANSACTION
> /*Create a Blueprint for a Staff of Winning here, except I won't
> actually try that until we have Emergency Reform :-P */
>
> Consultations 64, 65, and 66 are ZOTTED.
>
> END TRANSACTION
> }}
>
> --Priest 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