Geoffrey Spear on Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:25:54 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 45 Answer; Blueprint |
I was never the Heinz, that was Hose (who performed admirably in his duties) On Nov 30, 2007 4:10 PM, Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The "Rat Hole and Shampoo Store" is hereby renamed the "First and Only Portrait of Wooble as the First and Only Heinz." > > The "First and Only Portrait of Wooble as the First and Only Heinz" is hereby renamed the "Cwn." > > I take the Miniministry of Prophecy (if it exists and is Vacant). > > Codae > > P.S. nttpf > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 3:40:06 PM > Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 45 Answer; Blueprint > > I object, it is unfair to rat holes and shampoo stores to compare them > to Consultation 45. > > > Justin Ahmann wrote: > > I claim the answer to Proposal 45 to be INCONSISTENT with the "Rat Hole and Shampoo Store," where Claims of (in)consistency claim (in)consistency between a Consultation's Answer and the "Rat Hole and Shampoo Store." > > > > Codae > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx> > > To: B Nomic business <spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:26:20 AM > > Subject: Re: [s-b] Consultation 45 Answer; Blueprint > > > > ttpf > > > > Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > > >> On Nov 25, 2007 11:08 AM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>> A) > >>>> > >>>> {{ > >>>> Is it true that any player can define a blueprint? > >>>> }} > >>>> > >>>> > >>> This is Consultation Number 45 and I assign it to Priest Wooble. > >>> > >>> > >> I answer YES. > >> > >> While the rules don't explicitly allow the creation of Blueprints > >> except by the Artisan, they don't forbid it, either. Everyone who > >> voted to foolishly repeal the Monopoly Rule may kick themselves. > >> > >> > >> > > INCONSISTENT with established doctrine > > This topic has already been discussed to the point that it's not even > > funny anymore. > > > > Shame on you Wooble! > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > spoon-business mailing list > > spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business > > _______________________________________________ > > spoon-business mailing list > > spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business > > > > _______________________________________________ > spoon-discuss mailing list > spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss > _______________________________________________ > spoon-business mailing list > spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business > -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/ _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss