Alex Smith on Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:23:59 -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 Fri, 2009-01-02 at 01:41 +0000, Elliott Hird wrote: > 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. The consultation has no power to do anything. So stop worrying about people calling it consistent. -- ais523 _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss