Re: [s-d] [s-b] 0x44's Refresh Proposal [Revised].

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 7:33 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Craig Daniel wrote:
>> That's why I'm for keeping the ones that don't depend on the loopholes
>> the emergency is patching. Like Epimenides.
>>
> As a non-member to Epimenides, I don't know that Epimenides violates the
> patches or not. If your contract is clean under my proposed changes,
> nothing is preventing you from resubmitting your contract. I think that
> Epimienides violates my proposed changes to 4e5, however.

The message which originally submitted it violates your new version of
4E5, but I believe the text itself (which, by the way, can be read in
its entirety in the first version of my refresh prop) does not. And
what is now in force as the contract is that text, rather than the zip
file.

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