Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Taking back the game

Rob Speer on 6 Aug 2003 19:07:47 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Taking back the game

To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Taking back the game
From: Rob Speer <rspeer@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 15:07:22 -0400
In-reply-to: <200308061444050990.00158958@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <20030806173556.GC20009@xxxxxxx> <oprthv9kcrsqt5su@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200308061444050990.00158958@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:44:05PM -0400, Glotmorf wrote:
> Um.  Isn't Rule 1637 subordinate to all the other rules in the ruleset, which by their very existence say they're in fact there?

It didn't deny their existence, it repealed them.

Rules have repealed other rules before without this conflict.
-- 
Rob Speer

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

References:
- [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Taking back the game
  - From: Glotmorf

Prev by Date: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Oops
Next by Date: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Taking back the game
Previous by thread: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Taking back the game
Next by thread: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Taking back the game
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread