Re: [s-b] [s-d] Consultations on the Pencil Sharpener

[Elliott Hird <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 16 Dec 2008, at 22:13, Jamie Dallaire wrote:

> I think the only grounds for it having happened anyway is that the  
> initial
> Laws for uncoloured squares don't use the dependent actions  
> mechanism (which
> requires intent, support/objection, then performance). The initial  
> laws just
> use vague "with consent" language that could be interpreted a  
> number of
> ways.

my intent was to require the resolve; it is needed, I think, because  
it's
"SOMEONE can do it with consent", i.e. the someone has to do it.

I claim comex's answer on that Consultation to be INCONSISTENT.
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business