Re: [s-b] [s-d] Consultation 139

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:42 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I claim this to be inconsistent.  Destruction is not explicitly defined
>> as being restricted to game objects; destruction of currency can be
>> reasonably translated to reduction of the relevant attribute.  Also,
>> the Oracularity does not repair the clause enforcing payment of fines,
>> nor does it address similar clauses in Rules 4E4 and 4E89.
>>
> As the Supplicant, you cannot issue a Claim of consistency upon the
> Consultation (Please see 4e18).

I, however, can. I declare the answer to Consultation 139 CONSISTENT,
though I would like to pass a proposal to replace the deleted text
with something.

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