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

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ehird wrote:

> On 26 Jan 2009, at 17:58, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 
>> When you're discussing multiple scams, you really should specify which
>> one you have in mind at any given point.
> 
> The one I quoted in the arguments, perhaps?!

You mean the arguments that discussed two rules (5E47 and 5E10), either
or both of which the scam may have depended on?

ais523 wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 09:21 -0800, 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.
> I agree with this as far as it goes; however, I was explicitly scamming
> a loophole in rule 5e10 (probably my favourite of all of the B rules for
> scamming). Rule 5e57 doesn't contain the loophole itself, just opens a
> loophole in another rule.

Okay, so now we finally get a Consultation on 5E10 (I don't think
there ever was one before, I might be wrong though).
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss