Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 139

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ed Murphy wrote:
> I claim this to be inconsistent.  Destruction is not explicitly defined
> as being restricted to game objects; destruction of currency can be
> reasonably translated to reduction of the relevant attribute.  Also,
> the Oracularity does not repair the clause enforcing payment of fines,
> nor does it address similar clauses in Rules 4E4 and 4E89.
>   
As the Supplicant, you cannot issue a Claim of consistency upon the 
Consultation (Please see 4e18).

-- 
--
0x44;

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