Re: [s-d] [s-b] To the MoQ

0x44 on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:59:45 +0100 (CET)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] To the MoQ

To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] To the MoQ
From: 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:00:05 -0600
In-reply-to: <33dd05c30801140957x65075668n85341645b11ba260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <34795.95561.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <33dd05c30801140957x65075668n85341645b11ba260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14pre (X11/20071023)

Aaron Coquet wrote:
> My answer, annoyingly enough, is NO.
> Oracularity:
> {
> If there is any rule currently which, as the entirety of it's text, claims
> that another rule does not exist, remove that rule.
> }
>   
Hah, there is no rule 3-13, currently, so there is no rule that claims
another rule does not exist!
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] To the MoQ
  - From: Aaron Coquet

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Let Twins specify Conflicts
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] To the MoQ
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] To the MoQ
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] To the MoQ
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread