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