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

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> While I agree with teucer that the rules are just as silent on the fate of
> ehird's macks as on that of Warrigal's, I do think there is a good bit of
> value to Murphy's argument. An intrinsic part of the definition of ehird's
> macks is precisely that they are ehird's. When ehird ceased to be a Player,
> and could no longer be those macks' owner, then it stands to reason that
> *something* happens to those macks. There is no analogous reason to think
> that *something* happened to Warrigal's macks.

That's certainly true. But there's nothing that can be logically
chosen for ehird's macks but not Warrigal's, despite it being clear
something has to have been happen.

> I'm pulling for Paradox with a Proposal than explicitly destroys any mack
> formerly owned by ehird, if there is any such mack.

It should be NO, I think. But I'd be happy enough with a result that
gives me a victory, too.

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