Re: [s-d] [s-b] The sweep of unhistory

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

I don't know about that "Warrigal's mack" one.
188 never existed. I skipped that number since 187 was followed by 9999+i.
184 was indeed Pondered False.
Very likely those old 160-173 ones you mentioned were never reassigned.

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I ZOT all Waiting consultations that have a number less than 191, or
> were submitted before January 16, 2009 at 00:00:00 UTC and have not
> yet been numbered.  I believe this affects the following:
>
>  160 "Is the MoM ever allowed to turn the Clock On?"
>  170 "Do Pondered Consultations create precedents that affect how to
>       accurately judge other Consultations?"
>  172 {The e-mail entitled "ram" (sent by ehird) is spam. ehird is
>       therefore in contravention of Rule 58.}
>  173 "Are ndays Game Objects?"
>  184 "Are there any Mackerel formerly owned by ehird?"
>  188 ???
>  ??? "Were Warrigal's macks destroyed when ehird deregistered?"
>
> Feel free to re-submit any of these; this just saves me the trouble
> of digging further back into history.
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>



-- 
 -Tyler
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss