Tyler on Sun, 4 Jan 2009 22:19:31 -0700 (MST)


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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation: ehird's macks


Ah, then is Nobody defined by the Rules? I missed that somehow.

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Elliott Hird <
penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> On 4 Jan 2009, at 10:37, Tyler wrote:
>
> As priest for this Consultation, (I hope I'm not too late,) I Answer it
>> TRUE. Reasoning:
>>
>
> I agree with the judgment but not the reasoning. Nobody is just an abstract
> value defined by the rules. It could as well have been called Chewbacca.
>    In fact, it _should_ have been called Chewbacca.
> _______________________________________________
> 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