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

Mike McGann on Thu, 7 Feb 2008 17:10:19 -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: "Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 19:10:14 -0500
In-reply-to: <44e5a2650802071455u66fadc77w9b7372d36f318b5f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <491660.47771.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650802071455u66fadc77w9b7372d36f318b5f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Feb 7, 2008 5:55 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> also, BobTHJ, doesn't your claim of inconsistency contain some form of
> allusion?
>
>
No, there are many things which should not be named. You can't tell which
thing, out of the set of all things which should not be named, that he was
referring to.

- Hose
_______________________________________________
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: Jamie Dallaire
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization
  - From: Antonio Dolcetta

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

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Out of bounds
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