Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation assignments

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

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> I phrased that poorly. I will ZOT the request if Wooble requests that I do.


And here's why I think it shouldn't be zotted :-) I can't do my job as MoS
without it, IMO.

C Nomic might have been dissociated from B Nomic by P. 496. It certainly got
untied from B by Rule 4E83's modification, though I'm not sure why "C Nomic
is repealed" actually means, operationally. (so there might still be a C
Nomic floating around out there, independent of B) Actually, my Oracularity
to 131 sets C Nomic back up to be identical to B (except modifications to
4E83 actually make C Nomic's 4E83 ALSO proclaim that the name of C Nomic is
B Nomic, long live B Nomic...). Fortunately, though (since I realized I
forgot some quotation marks in the oracularity and would have butchered
4E83), my attempted modification to 4E83 fails because it says the period at
the end of it should be replaced. 4E83 doesn't end with a period anymore. So
C Nomic is, I guess, pretty much identical to B Nomic as of when the
oracularity gets pondered, but then isn't tied in state anymore...

Hmmm. That was pretty much BESIDE my original point. I ranted. Why it
shouldn't be ZOTTED: though C Nomic is no longer tied to B, and may not
exist, it WAS tied to B at the time when comex may or may not have forfeited
C Nomic. If he did forfeit C Nomic, he also did the same in B Nomic.

So it's essential for me as MoS AND for Charles as the MoB, what with
comex's recent string of contracts.

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