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

Jamie Dallaire on Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:55:29 -0700 (MST)

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

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

To: "discussion list for B Nomic" <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization
From: "Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 17:55:21 -0500
In-reply-to: <491660.47771.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <491660.47771.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On 2/7/08, Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It doesn't.  It's only asking whether abuse will happen.  So somebody can
> answer it No, and...
>
> I answer Consultation 108 NO.


i'm pretty sure "please" and "for the love of god" are pretty good
indicators that this is a form of request :-p

also, BobTHJ, doesn't your claim of inconsistency contain some form of
allusion?

Billy Pilgrim
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization
  - From: Mike McGann

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization
  - From: Justin Ahmann

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Macks are not Meters
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread