Re: [s-d] [s-b] New Contract

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

You know, I was almost hoping someone would take the MoQ off my hands. That
being said, "a Retainer of 1" doesn't have meaning anymore, so you're going
to have to try again, Wooble. And I would say it's counterproductive to
assign meaningless Consultations to Priests just because someone felt like
submitting them.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I cause the below Consultation to be ZOTTED. I don't see officers in the
> > contract so it's obviously invalid. He never specified that the contract
> was
> > at the other end of the link, so the link is the attempted contract,
> > apparently.
>
> I Usurp the Ministry of Questions, specifying a Retainer of 1.
> Zotting consultations because you think the answer is obvious is
> counterproductive.
> --
> Wooble
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>



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