Re: [s-d] [s-b] Fwd: Consultation 71 assigned to BobTHJ (was: Consultati

0x44 on Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:41:32 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Fwd: Consultation 71 assigned to BobTHJ (was: Consultation: Rules.)

To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Fwd: Consultation 71 assigned to BobTHJ (was: Consultation: Rules.)
From: 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:41:53 -0600
In-reply-to: <56732cfd0801040938h72b739fla09199954287a2d7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <cf0c2a990712261430r5acd20edkbfdb5e3157f54e4e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650712270902u6a8d250alcccb4f5c3e167cb4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650712270902v368f2a00m2c2a336ddd3f31f4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <56732cfd0801040938h72b739fla09199954287a2d7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14pre (X11/20071022)

Roger Hicks wrote:
>
> Was this consultation re-assigned? Has it been answered? Per the new
> obligation rules, I believe I have ceased to be the priest. I'm happy
> to answer it, but I believe any answer from me would be invalid at
> this point.
>   
It was re-assigned and answered in the context of this nweek, because
I'm an idiot and didn't include the phrase, "At the time this
consultation was entered..."
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Fwd: Consultation 71 assigned to BobTHJ (was: Consultation: Rules.)
  - From: Roger Hicks

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Fwd: Consultation 71 assigned to BobTHJ (was: Consultation: Rules.)
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 85: Answer
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Fwd: Consultation 71 assigned to BobTHJ (was: Consultation: Rules.)
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 85: Answer
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread