Re: [s-d] [s-b] Answer to Consultation 39

Ed Murphy on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:15:30 +0100 (CET)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Answer to Consultation 39

To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Answer to Consultation 39
From: Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:14:02 -0800
In-reply-to: <200711231010.47855.josiahw@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <6d741b990711221332s6ffcfbb7x3f36012de9d96c3b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <cf0c2a990711230746w68c71b7ckd1bf3e5d81dc6fba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200711231010.47855.josiahw@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0

pikhq wrote:

> I claim this is CONSISTENT with existing doctrine.
> The AFO claims this is CONSISTENT with existing doctrine.

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

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Answer to Consultation 39
  - From: Josiah Worcester

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Answer to Consultation 39
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Answer to Consultation 39
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Answer to Consultation 39
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Answer to Consultation 39
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread