Re: [s-d] [s-b] Yes.

[Josiah Worcester <josiahw@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday 31 December 2007 11:13:29 0x44 wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > On Monday 31 December 2007 11:03:09 Jamie Dallaire wrote:
> >   
> >> On 12/31/07, Josiah Worcester <josiahw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:That will remove 
the
> >> rule "Rules", which is also inconsistent. Damned if you do, damned if you
> >> don't. ;)
> >>
> >>  Citizens, do not be FOOLED by this silver-tongued scoundrel.
> >>
> >> Claims of Inconsistency will NOT remove the Rule named "Rules"!
> >>
> >> Claims concern not only the Answer, but also the Oracularity. 
Furthermore,
> >> as per Rule 18, the Consultation will simply be reassigned to someone 
less
> >> Sneaky upon its Answer being overturned.
> >>
> >> Billy Pilgrim, Consumer Advocate
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> spoon-discuss mailing list
> >> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> >> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> >>
> >>     
> >
> > Fine. I claim my own answer as inconsistent.
> No you don't, neither the Priest, nor the Supplicant may make claims
> against Consultations.
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> 

I know, I know. The statement is more about admission of failure than anything 
else.

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