Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)

Ed Murphy on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:29:32 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)

To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
From: Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:26:40 -0800
In-reply-to: <55b258c20901231438u38e825fcp4ba9674d9c7fe219@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <467960.21565.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4979C41E.20802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650901230758w3d058054j5c70903cf977b734@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <43AD850E-829C-432A-846C-985C610052CC@xxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650901230825j2854ae97x9c4b1d6f7d43a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <9BD21C76-81E3-43EF-A835-228F787D9875@xxxxxxxxx> <BAY126-W3850C561A710D9F63688B85CF0@xxxxxxx> <55b258c20901231438u38e825fcp4ba9674d9c7fe219@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081209 Thunderbird/2.0.0.19 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0

teucer wrote:

> I really don't like the idea of people having to declare something
> they agree with INCONSISTENT just because it's got a shitty patch
> associated with it.

Then how about allowing people to vote on the judgment and the
Oracularity separately?
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
  - From: Craig Daniel

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
  - From: 0x44
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
  - From: Elliott Hird
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
  - From: Jamie Dallaire
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
  - From: Elliott Hird
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
  - From: James Baxter
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
  - From: Craig Daniel

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread