Antonio Dolcetta on Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:43:47 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization

On 7 Feb 2008, at 17:39, Geoffrey Spear wrote:

> On Feb 7, 2008 11:33 AM, ihope <ihope127@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 07/02/2008, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> This is Consultation #105. I assign it to Priest Ivan Hope.
>>> NOTE: This consultation can only be found to be YES. If it is  
>>> found to
>>> be NO, then it would not be a consultation, since both the message
>>> that called it and this message include the text of the quasi- 
>>> proposal
>>> "Enough Already!".
>>> Oracle BobTHJ
>> I answer this consultation NO, with the Oracularity of "All proposals
>> with the title of Enough Already! as well as all Consultations
>> numbered 105 are destroyed." If this Consultation didn't exist,
>> wonderful; if it did exist, now it doesn't.
> I claim this answer is INCONSISTENT with doctrine.

why ?
spoon-discuss mailing list