| 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