|
Elliott Hird on Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:35:33 -0700 (MST)
|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 203
|
- To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 203
- From: Elliott Hird <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:35:38 +0000
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:mime-version:in-reply-to :references:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:from :subject:date:to:x-mailer; bh=DlcQVplvymZ6FlMSSpRz/OlmZtJiolH2pXZEv/cB0uU=; b=D2fQOpzWRJp1Nk5TEI/KnGixXxNHx4WBFQyfiDMVrL7i19tH0F/UXLRgC+9a+wO7F2 n/DE9Uq6sMqrjMABE2aScguE1dMqDiBZ5xDREJa5kkItO9OZD7R0hnfN/GUghb+x0NH3 ilnt/aglctczhThqfU8F3JT4vo9tgU/Pccd2A=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id :content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=brXNNV+QbWZZDsJwSzslcz9bm6ZcnJ0acGqNpIjQPVFmjKJRYeVbIiXXWBf5DkbE3i 60D1dllS+13afGF/cZbVCxr2DPfUdLZkUOpNa2N+mH9BleyWhG9mf/R9a4TDifddDzqJ jIX0ZEysX92fToUvZm69qj1XWzzl1126XdSF0=
- In-reply-to: <497DF12E.90902@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <497D07BE.6060706@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <BAY126-W4450221912BD7D70E7D46F85CA0@xxxxxxx> <9E0D5C97-DF7D-4A86-A1A5-05885CE8F3BD@xxxxxxxxx> <497DF12E.90902@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 26 Jan 2009, at 17:21, Ed Murphy wrote:
I find the claim CONSISTENT. Just because 5E57 evaluates to "Contract
X may be modified by modifying Rule Y" doesn't imply that you can
modify Rule Y, only that *if* you manage to modify Rule Y then you
thereby also modify Contract X.
Regardless of the Answer, the judgment did not consider the scam.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss