Elliott Hird on Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:41:14 -0700 (MST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Assignments of Consultations 179-187 


On 2 Jan 2009, at 01:17, Charles Schaefer wrote:
BLATANTLY incorrect? If it were blatant, there would be no consultation on it in the first place. And consistent and inconsistent claims would not be 
so close. I may be incorrect, but not blatantly so.
The inconsistent claims are mainly from people trying to break the game from 
what I can gather.
fact is: this consultation does not have the power to arbitrarily destroy 
those mack. Nothing has destroyed them, either. Therefore, they exist.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss