Geoffrey Spear on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:16:51 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 105.

On Feb 13, 2008 2:10 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2008 10:55 AM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Roger Hicks wrote:
> > > Hmm...this does present a problem. You deny it's existance, yet if it
> > > does exist you will be obligated to answer it.
> > Both the proposal referred to by notConsultation 105, and
> > notConsultation 105 alluded to Rule 4e41. Per 4e41, both must be
> > disregarded and treated as if they had never reached the Public Forum.
> > Further, you included the text of both in the assignment to me, which
> > means I was never assigned the Consultation that does not exist. So, not
> > only does the Proposal /not/ exist, but the Consultation doesn't, /and/
> > I haven't been assigned as Priest. Rule 4e2 is pretty clear on that.
> Ah, but I wouldn't say that the Enough Already quasi-proposal actually
> alluded to 4e41. An without a clear answer to Consultation #105, we
> can not know for sure.

A Refresh Proposal that eliminates that stupid rule would let us know
for sure, too.
spoon-discuss mailing list