Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Speaking of mayhem...

["Baron von Skippy" <bvs@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> I think that is the second attempted scams this nweek that has 
>>> _already
>>> been tried_ (both in the first few months, IIRC...). Perhaps we should
>>> write a "History of the Great Scams of B-Nomic"... or would that just 
>>> give
>>> these younglings ideas?
>>>
>> -"Youngling?" I beg your pardon... anyway, this isn't a redo of the 
>> "imaginary friends" scamette from nweek 6. I checked. It looks a 
>> little like that, I'll admit, but there is one fundamental difference. 
>> That wasn't legal. This is. I know, it's a subtle difference, but it 
>> makes a world of difference.-
>
>I think we can say with a high degree of certainty that it wasn't legal.
>
>The problem is apparent in your message, in your usage of the word 'I' 
>- it's the same 'I' every time, which is already a player; you can't 
>become something if you already are it.

-Yes, but if we used a plural pronoun, or if the Baron used the third person, then people would think we were slightly cracked, and BvS doesn't think that's a good idea. So I'll just keep sticking to standard English.

Besides, I only performed an action 49 times. Are you going to say that it was illegal, for example, to buy two Gnomes in a row because you were using the same "I" every time? I was adding the attribute "is a player" each time, just as that would add the attribute "has a Gnome." We don't see the problem. (Maybe we should speak in the royal "we." There are 50 of us, after all.)-
>
>But we could award you 50 T-Shirts for it :) (Or better yet, we could 
>give you a "Baron" shirt and 49 "I'm with Baron" T-Shirts)
>
-Keep your virtual cotton. We're good as far as imaginary clothing goes.-

[[AAABvSBCCCCCCCEEFFJJJJJJLLLLMMMMMNPPPPPQSSSSTTTUVVVV]]
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss