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

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Feb 7, 2008 9:23 AM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  > 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!".
>  >
>
>  This consultation was declared inconsistent. I re-assign it (if it
>  exists) to Priest 0x44.
>
>  Oracle BobTHJ
>
0x44 has failed to answer this Consultation. Therefore I re-assign it
to Priest Hose.

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