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

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well, that may very well be true that I don't understand Consultations. I
didn't get much experience with them before I took the MoQ. I kinda just
figured my own way of thinking about them, mostly based on the rules and how
people asked and answered them. But that isn't why I ZOTTED the ones about C
Nomic. I had 2 reasons: I didn't want to do the work of filing them, and
secondly, we already have a parallel Consultation awaiting an Answer, which
I believed struck more concisely to the heart of the matter. (Of course, I
wrote it myself, so I have a major bias.)

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:22 PM, ehird <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 9 Oct 2008, at 20:20, Tyler wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > I don't think you understand consultations...
>
> Eh. I agree with the sentiment.
>
> But I would state that if he regards them as meaningless I doubt he
> understands *those* consultations - since a non-ZOTTED judgement on
> even a handful of them would have done a lot to clarify the
> presently-nebulous (and, apparently, nebulous to people other than me)
> nature of C Nomic.
>
>  - teucer
>  _______________________________________________
> 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