Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 203

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ehird wrote:

> 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.

When you're discussing multiple scams, you really should specify which
one you have in mind at any given point.

Priest JamesB definitely did consider ais523's possible dictatorship
scam (which I'd forgotten about), as e referred to Consultation 198
(which is now about six hours away from becoming Pondered).

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