Geoffrey Spear on Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:39:32 -0700 (MST)

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

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

On Feb 7, 2008 11:33 AM, ihope <ihope127@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/02/2008, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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
> I answer this consultation NO, with the Oracularity of "All proposals
> with the title of Enough Already! as well as all Consultations
> numbered 105 are destroyed." If this Consultation didn't exist,
> wonderful; if it did exist, now it doesn't.

I claim this answer is INCONSISTENT with doctrine.

spoon-business mailing list