Re: [s-d] [s-b] the formatting prop

shadowfirebird on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 05:23:25 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] the formatting prop

To: "discussion list for B Nomic" <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] the formatting prop
From: shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:23:20 +0000
In-reply-to: <4584CB54.2030505@xxxxxxx>
References: <200612162333.59484.comexk@xxxxxxxxx> <4584CB54.2030505@xxxxxxx>

> Can we use something more general for this? Re-introduce Administrative
> tidiness or something. I don't think formatting should be legislated,
> per se; it's way to bureaucratic, and people are sure to get it wrong in
> future props as well.

I agree.  Plus, really, what does it add to the game?
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] the formatting prop
  - From: bd

Prev by Date: [s-d] Spivak Pronouns (was Amended Proposal "Rule Tag")
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] Spivak Pronouns (was Amended Proposal "Rule Tag")
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] the formatting prop
Next by thread: [s-d] Spivak Pronouns (was Amended Proposal "Rule Tag")
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread