Roger Hicks on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:20:33 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] Oracle Report 26/07

On 6/26/07, Peter Cooper Jr. <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> (Although something interesting crossed my mind that I wanted to
> share: Had there been someone else calling Consultation 11
> Inconsistent, and the Primo Corporation had called it Consistent, we'd
> have had a bit of a paradox, where if it were a player it would be a
> player, and if it weren't a player (and thus couldn't call it
> Consistent), then it wouldn't be a player. We've got a *lot* in our
> ruleset that assumes that we know who is and isn't a player...)

I was pondering this, but Primo's charter does not permit it to make
claims implicitly. There would have had to be a vote of the
shareholders, and it didn't appear there would be enough time (nor
possibly enough support).

spoon-discuss mailing list