Re: [s-b] MoQ Report - Consultations 155-160 Priest Assignments

[Warrigal <ihope127+w@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jamie Dallaire
<bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> *Consultation 156:*
>
> Supplicant: Billy Pilgrim
>
> Question: At the time of this Consultation's submission, is it currently
> nday 2?
>
> Unbeliever: j
>
> Reasoning: j attempted to turn on the clock when nweek 152 first started,
> and turned it off the next day. If he succeeded, then it should by now be
> nday 3 (the clock having been turned on for real nyesterday). If not, it's
> nday 2. He may not have succeeded because the rule defining Ministries was
> missing its proper text. But some have argued that Ministries were at the
> time defined implicitly, each in their own rule.

Presumably, the Rule back then stated that a certain Minister could
turn on the Clock. The most reasonable referent when you say "the
Minister of Whatever" if there are no Ministries currently is either
the person who most recently held the Ministry of Whatever (j, I'm
assuming) or the person who's responsible for doing whatever the
Minister of Whatever would be required to do (nobody). Since j is the
most reasonable referent (I can think of no other reasonable
referents), the Rule did indeed refer to j, so this worked. Therefore,
I judge NO.

> *Consultation 158:*
>
> Supplicant: Geoffrey Spear ("wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx")
>
> Question: Did JamesB violate Rule 5E38 by posting commercial spam to the
> Public Forum in the above-quoted message and elsewhere?
>
> [[the above-quoted message said: "Are you a PC?  Upload your PC story and
> show the world http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/122465942/direct/01/";]]
>
> Unbeliever: JamesB
>
> Gratuitous Arguments from ehird: "no, because it was not the meaning of spam
> as in bulk or excess mail that we use."

I judge NO. As far as I can tell, B in general has no particular
objection to receiving spam as in advertisements, which JamesB could
not easily avoid sending anyway; bulk or excess mail, on the other
hand, is definitely objectionable.

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