Re: [s-d] [s-b] contract

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

To j:
I'm talking about this thread. Three people (if my count is right) submitted
transactions that made them paranoid if Wooble's numberless Rule was
created. So I'm realizing now that we aren't in emergency, at least not
because of this thread.

To this thread:
Also, I don't think Wooble's rule was created. This because, according to
Rule 36, on Rules, a Rule must have a number. Since 36 beats 70, Wooble's
rule isn't even a rule. But if contract obligations can automate
impermissable actions, then Rule 70 was amended to seal the gap after all.
Yay!

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
> If four were, all were, and all weren't, so four must not be.
>
>
> Tyler wrote:
> > That one says "Are ALL Players Paranoid". I'm talking about just 4 of
> them.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >> A consultation has already been answered saying players are not
> >> paranoid. If you disagree you can claim that answer inconsistent.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tyler wrote:
> >>
> >>> I would have had a clever solution, but I can't do it if we're in
> >>>
> >> emergency.
> >>
> >>> So I'll leave it up to the Priests and PEPs to decide the issue. (We
> are
> >>>
> >> in
> >>
> >>> emergency if Wooble's scam succeeded, right?)
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> spoon-discuss mailing list
> >> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> >> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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