Re: [s-d] AMEND PROPOSAL: The Rules Rule

Chuck Adams on Fri, 8 Dec 2006 14:52:02 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] AMEND PROPOSAL: The Rules Rule

To: "discussion list for B Nomic" <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] AMEND PROPOSAL: The Rules Rule
From: "Chuck Adams" <cja987@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:51:57 -0800
In-reply-to: <85ade64f0612081348h394587kc18f18d2e7656827@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <85ade64f0612081217jb81376djbddd8343a802b6d7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4579C8DF.1020709@xxxxxxx> <85ade64f0612081232o1c538f9ud0c4ef2df06c45e0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200612081642.24695.comexk@xxxxxxxxx> <85ade64f0612081348h394587kc18f18d2e7656827@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On 12/8/06, Chuck Adams <cja987@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My revised proposal is actually pretty compatible now with the
> Monopoly/Legal proposals, and it should make sense to vote for both.

Oops, I meant both my proposal and one of those.  They're certainly
not mutually compatible!  Personally I'm for the Monopoly Rule,
otherwise it's really easy to just fiat your own actions in based on
tortured interpretations of what the rule text *actually* prohibits.

(And yes another thing I do too often is reply to my own posts)

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

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] AMEND PROPOSAL: The Rules Rule
  - From: bd
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] AMEND PROPOSAL: The Rules Rule
  - From: Chuck Adams
- Re: [s-d] AMEND PROPOSAL: The Rules Rule
  - From: comex
- Re: [s-d] AMEND PROPOSAL: The Rules Rule
  - From: Chuck Adams

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] AMEND PROPOSAL: The Rules Rule
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: conflicts and dependencies
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] AMEND PROPOSAL: The Rules Rule
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] AMEND PROPOSAL: The Rules Rule
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread