Re: [s-d] $wgLogo

shadowfirebird on Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:13:30 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] $wgLogo

To: "discussion list for B Nomic" <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] $wgLogo
From: shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:13:26 +0000
In-reply-to: <200612101740.44549.comexk@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <200612082139.09513.comexk@xxxxxxxxx> <9FCCD355-D35F-407F-B44D-47EF1D9156D1@xxxxxxxxxxx> <2f4350400612101343g4591470au5d0877419b0dfef2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200612101740.44549.comexk@xxxxxxxxx>

> An RFJ's Reasoning, however, is a part of the game.  Why not use it to
> understand what the disagreement is about?

I did.  But I have to make a ruling based on the statement, not the reasoning.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] $wgLogo
  - From: Daniel Lepage

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] $wgLogo
  - From: Daniel Lepage
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] $wgLogo
  - From: shadowfirebird
- Re: [s-d] $wgLogo
  - From: comex

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] $wgLogo
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] nweek 113 ballot
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] $wgLogo
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] $wgLogo
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread