Re: [s-d] [s-b] Inflationary Language

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hmm, I think I agree with Tyler on this one. The claim is wrong (the one
that says motion = game document) but that doesn't mean that motions aren't
a valid mechanism for changing contract text, within that contract.

BP

On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> "The Motion is a Game Document" is a claim, which happens to be false,
> probably. It isn't a definition of the term Motion. And there aren't any
> regulations on what claims can be made by a Contract, only that the parties
> to it are bound by it.
>
> Thus my argument 2 emails ago on this thread holds. No need for state
> backtracking, 'cause it's all legit.
>
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > But Blue Corp explicitly says "The Motion is a Game Document", which
> > noone has autorization to create.
> >
> > Wasn't Black Corp (illegally) forked from the same text?
>
>
>
>
> --
>  -Tyler
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss