Re: [s-b] Consultation: Again the Rule

[Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I answer this Consultation NO.

I will not provide Reasoning.

Codae


----- Original Message ----
From: Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>
To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:56:59 AM
Subject: Re: [s-b] Consultation: Again the Rule

On Jan 26, 2008 12:51 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Jan 21, 2008 11:58 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Jan 21, 2008 3:36 PM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I submit the following Consultation since the other one got zotted:
> > >
> > > {{
> > > Can we merge any forked state that may exist from Rule 41?
> > >
> > > Unbeliever: 0x44
> > > }}
> > >
> > > I recommend the following Oracularity
> > > {{
> > > Remove all occurrences of the following text from the Rules:
> > > {{
> > > There is no Rule 4E41.
> > > }}
> > > Repeal any Rule that has no text.
> > > }}
> > > }}
> >
> > This is Consultation #93. I assign it to Priest Dominov.
> >
> > BobTHJ
> >
> I re-assign this Consultation to Priest Anything McGee
>
> BobTHJ
>

I re-assign this Consultation to Priest Codae

BobTHJ
_______________________________________________
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