Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Call For Judgment

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/6/02 at 4:26 AM Antonio wrote:

>On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 02:44:56 -0500, Rob Speer <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 02:23:47AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
>>> Anyway...a suggestion?  Plunder (and yes, lad, you're probably branded
>with that now) is only prohibited from sending unsillified text to the
>public fora. There isn't anything stopping him from emailing another
>player the original text and having it relayed here.  Okay, that may
>defeat the spirit of the thing, but I just gotta know what that started
>out as...
>>
>>I'm not entirely sure that's true. Perhaps someone could issue a CFJ on
>>it, and if it's false, pretend you never heard this message.
>>
>>See, when I meant "public forum", I put in the rule "official forum".
>>And a "forum" is just a means by which players communicate, and that's
>>the most official definition there is. So, I meant for conversation on
>>spoon-discuss to be unaffected, but I'm not sure it works that way.
>>
>
>The way I read it, ALL messages you send on ANY fora should be cursed.
>And you just broke them, twice it seems.
>Tell you what, I'll issue a CFJ on it and we'll see.
>--
>Antonio

We still haven't defined "forum" officially for the sake of the rules.  I suppose that that means a given person can use a given dictionary to determine the definition, though I'd hesitate to say that...Imagine if Plunder were to visit Washington DC tomorrow.  He'd have to use a Palm Pilot if he wanted to say anything in the Capitol.

						Glotmorf