Re: [s-b] Consultation, collated

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 7:21 AM, M P Darke <darkemalcolm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Just for the record:
> "
> I submit a Consultation:
> Are the contracts "Loose Interpretation
> League" and "Strict Interpretation League" likely to create two warring
> groups of Player (with possible pressure applied to non-contractees to
> join one or the other)?
> Unbelievers: All parties to the Contracts "Loose Interpretation League" and "Strict Interpretation League"
> "

I submit a Consultation:

{Question: Did the above create a Consultation?
Unbeliever: Marr596
Reasoning: it certainly tried to, but I believe it to have been
invalid due to illegally specifying multiple unbelievers. Note that e
submitted a perfectly valid Consultation with the same text and no
Unbeliever already, so if it doesn't exist its nonexistence doesn't
stop there from being one with the same text.}

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