Re: [s-b] [s-d] (no subject)

Ed Murphy on Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:54:28 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-b] [s-d] (no subject)

To: B Nomic Business <spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-b] [s-d] (no subject)
From: Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:55:45 -0800
In-reply-to: <49873914.9090700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <956602.48398.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc1c5cf21c38273ea7a0c314eeca8176@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <49873811.1080104@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <55b258c20902021015p15fdb101t88e5fd01928af5fb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <49873914.9090700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081209 Thunderbird/2.0.0.19 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0

j wrote:

> Next step: is there only one mack in existence?

Macks have no rule-specified names.  Weapons are broken because 5E49
explicitly says--

No, wait, I claim the latest answer to 205 to be INCONSISTENT.  5E49
explicitly says (a) that all Weapons have a name and (b) what the names
of *types* of Weapons are, but never assigns names to *instances* of
weapons.  Thus, by my "the OCB's name is Fred" precedent, instances have
names but we don't know what they are.

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

References:
- Re: [s-b] (no subject)
  - From: M P Darke

Prev by Date: Re: [s-b] (no subject)
Next by Date: Re: [s-b] [s-d] (no subject)
Previous by thread: Re: [s-b] (no subject)
Next by thread: Re: [s-b] [s-d] (no subject)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread