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

ihope on Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:00:42 -0700 (MST)

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

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

To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization
From: ihope <ihope127@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:00:39 -0500
In-reply-to: <cf0c2a990802070848j4215526v599f113fefc8997d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <169695.7652.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <56732cfd0802061006x7742b5b5t531335b8644a37ca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <6d741b990802061019x66b5d60g8e03b5c53af185eb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <56732cfd0802061450r5dc73ee5l199c31344b0865b6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650802062129m152bf5b2q7198a7da138d0e09@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <56732cfd0802070823k5d5f845eq7839c5065e8213cd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <7db5cba20802070833h52925721l8caf9087821abf9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <cf0c2a990802070839w414b9aceq134668c5868d8321@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <289CFF4D-12A3-4E50-A33A-2593D423F4F6@xxxxxxxxx> <cf0c2a990802070848j4215526v599f113fefc8997d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On 07/02/2008, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I claim this answer is INCONSISTENT with doctrine.
> >
> > why ?
>
> Because it destroys a Proposal and a Consultation, which is a blatant
> abuse of the Oracularity system.

How would you have answered it, then?

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

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization
  - From: Justin Ahmann
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization
  - From: Mike McGann
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization
  - From: Antonio Dolcetta

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Blueprint Creation
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread