spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ

["Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre@xxxxxxxx>]

I would judge this statement true myself.  It is entirely TRUE that Glotmorf objected as stated on 2/14/2002, and TRUE that Glotmorf so contends as e states below, however FALSE the point of contention itself may be.  Far be it from us to tell Glotmorf what e does or doesn't contend!  

Both sentences are true, but they don't really *do* anything except clue us in to Glotmorf's past actions and current state of mind.  ;-)

--Scoff!

p.s.  If you liked this brief introduction, then buy my series of video tutorials entitled "Semantics For Fun And Profit"!  If you call within the next five minutes, we'll even throw in an all-purpose cleaning solution made from the flayed carcass of that annoying pitch-man for Orange Clean who is constantly interrupting my enjoyment of BBC America!  Don't hesitate!  Call now!  

(Shipping and Handling Charges of $59.95 or the Gross Domestic Product of your home country, whichever is greater, may apply.)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 4:49 PM
> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: spoon-business: CFJ
> 
> 
> On 2/14/2002 I objected to the Administrator's earlier 
> statement that proposal 377 was on a ballot.  I contend that 
> now, as per r129, the game state is altered to a state that 
> doesn't include that statement, since it was objected to.
> 
> 						Glotmorf