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

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ehird wrote:

> On 2 Jan 2009, at 11:26, James Baxter wrote:
> 
>> I find this CONSISTENT as nothing can be done with the macks and  
>> they are not being legally owned by anyone (they can't even be  
>> owned by Nobody) therfore I find a judgement that they be destroyed  
>> to be right.
> 
> WHAT IS THE RULES BASIS FROM THEM BEING DESTROYED?
> 
> nothing! Nothing!
> 
> This Consultation isn't even Influential! It doesn't make them so, it  
> is merely FALSE!
> 
> The rules do not say they are destroyed. They simply don't. And this  
> consultation can't change that.
> 
> You are all batshit insane and consistent-ing in a simply INCORRECT  
> judgment.

Are you equally Tired And Emotional about the related theory that they
cease to be Game Objects?  (See my previous "one of these three things
probably happened to ehird's mack" message.)

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