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

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 7, 2008 11:43 AM, Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 7 Feb 2008, at 17:39, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
>
> why ?

Because it destroys a Proposal and a Consultation, which is a blatant
abuse of the Oracularity system.

I submit the following Consultation:
{{
Will some Priest please for the love of god abuse the oracularity
system to stop everyone else from doing so?
}}

Unbeliever: Codae

--Wooble
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business