Re: [s-d] [s-b] Usurpation

Mike McGann on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:52:41 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Usurpation

To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Usurpation
From: "Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:52:37 -0500
In-reply-to: <44e5a2650712310947t601188afp93120a42a1f6c764@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <200712302350.34234.josiahw@xxxxxxxxx> <cf0c2a990712310822x7f466f61p89340c32a26bdd14@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <6d741b990712310839j7796f28fqc8a423dc406d2093@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650712310947t601188afp93120a42a1f6c764@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Dec 31, 2007 12:47 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Though it is by now futile to do so, I object on the grounds that pikhq is
> attempting to usurp using an obsolete mechanism that has remained in the
> rules through proposal parsing mishaps and will soon vanish via Mr. Fixit.
> Try again when the retainer is actually defined/important.
>

Which is exactly the reason why I don't like the new retainer system. If you
have the points, you can usurp without any objections no matter what. I only
voted for Mr. Fixit because it was the will of B, not me.

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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Usurpation
  - From: Roger Hicks

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Usurpation
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Yes.
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Usurpation
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Usurpation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread