Re: [s-d] [s-b] field action

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 7, 2008 8:49 AM, ihope <ihope127@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/02/2008, Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > If you send this to the public forum in this form I will claim it
> > inconsistent.
>
> Yay, I made a mistake!
>
> On 05/02/2008, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 2008 9:06 AM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Consultation:  Are there an infinite number of kings?
> > >
> > > (Arguably, the repetition in Initialize doesn't proceed until the
> > > Referee actually chooses the next batch of random numbers, in which
> > > case the current match could be salvaged by way of the Referee
> > > intentionally failing to do so.)
> >
> > This is Consultation #104. I assign it to Priest Ivan Hope.
> >
> > Oracle BobTHJ
>
> I take the es-como-es approach and answer this Consultation NO, with
> the Reasoning of "Adjacency for Field Objects is undefined." and the
> Oracularity of "The initial placement of Kings is made the current
> placement of Kings."
>
This became pondered at midnight and the above Oracularity went into effect.

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