| Roger Hicks on Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:44:47 -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 9:33 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 INCONSISTENT, as I despise that which shall not be named. BobTHJ _______________________________________________ spoon-business mailing list spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business