Re: [s-d] [s-b] Assigning Consultation

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not sure the answer is consistent by i think the oracularity is a very
neat fix indeed. I claim this to be consistent, but I'm the supplicant so
who cares.

BP

On 1/10/08, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Jan 10, 2008 1:40 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > > On Jan 10, 2008 3:07 PM, Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> {
> > >> Does any Player of B Nomic own a device named "Mutation Ray"?
> > >>
> > >> Reasoning: Proposal 280 ("Arabidopsis") created a non-unique device
> (not a
> > >> Blueprint...) called "Mutation Ray" yet did not assign this device an
> owner.
> > >> Rule 4E35 states that the range of the attribute "device owner" is
> all
> > >> devices, and that its scope is all device owning objects. The only
> types of
> > >> device owning objects mentioned in the rules are Players (again,
> 4E35).
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> This is Consultation 70.  I assign it to Priest Wooble.
> > >>
> > > I answer this Consultation NO.
> > >
> > I claim this is CONSISTENT.
> >
> I also claim this to be CONSISTENT.
>
> BobTHJ
> _______________________________________________
> 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