Roger Hicks on Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:23:21 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-b] [s-d] Rule Categorization

On Feb 6, 2008 10:29 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 5:50 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Blame it on Murphy. I just plagiarized the thing. I revise the
> > proposal titled "Enough Already!" to read:
> > {
> > Repeal all rules except for 4E0 through 4E40 and 4E42 through 4E100
> > }
> I submit the following consultation:
> Question: At the time of this consultation's submission, does there exist a
> Proposal titled "Enough Already!"?
> Reasoning: I can't say, but you should know what I mean. wink wink.
> Oracularity, please.

This is Consultation #105. I assign it to Priest Ivan Hope.

NOTE: This consultation can only be found to be YES. If it is found to
be NO, then it would not be a consultation, since both the message
that called it and this message include the text of the quasi-proposal
"Enough Already!".

Oracle BobTHJ
spoon-business mailing list