Re: [s-b] Consultation 211

[<bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I claim this answer to be INCONSISTENT.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:49:32 +0000, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> 
>> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 23:52:55 -0800
> 
>> From: emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
>> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> 
>> Subject: Re: [s-b] More wording shenanigans
> 
>> 
> 
>> Marr965 wrote:
> 
>> 
> 
>> > I submit a consultation:
> 
>> > "
> 
>> > Is the consultation below relevant to the game state?
> 
>> > "
> 
>> 
> 
>> This is Consultation 211. I assign it to Priest JamesB.
> 
>  
> 
> I believe that "the consultation below" was Consultation 210.
> 
>  
> 
> I answer Consultation 211 YES.
> 
>  
> 
> Reasoning: the question was clearly a test of the following part of 5E36:
> 
>  
> 
> {If a Statement is submitted, it shall be treated as a Question of the
> form "is it true that <statement>?".}
> 
>  
> 
> and could have revealed moderate game breakage.
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get all your favourite content with the slick new MSN Toolbar - FREE
> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354027/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business

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