Re: [s-b] Consultation 67 answers

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

I also claim this to be CONSISTENT.

BobTHJ

On Dec 7, 2007 7:32 AM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business