Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Loose Interpretation League

Craig Daniel on Sun, 8 Feb 2009 08:51:52 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Loose Interpretation League

To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Loose Interpretation League
From: Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 10:51:45 -0500
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ExGXNW/hFAg479/w8OYQWf2Zhk3vQvNyEhLsjwL3OvU=; b=MqtIyrDMaH/f2KsrhIkIVPgIy3Czb3w3AWmn3ALaelM5SOYpoqxOTCLScfeQcKoY3+ Udi3QhWl/RxeoVQYJCXzCzZgyYLq4jU7n2fvEwqZSwhpPe1B9QLIocEd3h5uqIgECpiv 9XT0MacOBADb2BhUcrXBqSuEXHMfseTNpvJUY=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=fgCIoqxSYHmpZPl9aiVoW+pVnMBRtQotDbt8lfvyzWE7YwviwLXUHbRjGBqHm18C9Y UVRUw0qmwMNcTWkbo5kYqkd9+A+60tyfoNkxXATuZ7qdJhv7ohQ2h6ViuyqMN63VkiEA jG1NI4zqa6Tdmf6c87jJgbI9Fx3F11+f6DiAM=
In-reply-to: <784a579e0902070635s4b1c9f18u6b9326cae22bfa1e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <7db5cba20902032200v7893c148we4bca2a86ab645ca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <398314.83599.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <784a579e0902061404v337c251fj8f48bd1cdbab8f82@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <784a579e0902061646j61c21da7w807b2292ac785513@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <55b258c20902061940g55335124o691cc6abeb6538da@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <784a579e0902070635s4b1c9f18u6b9326cae22bfa1e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Elliott Hird
<penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2009/2/7 Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> A vanilla non-aggression pact that happens to call its parties
>> "losers" is bad for the game?
>
> Non-aggression? You mean like forbidding consistency declarations
> just because someone tends to interpret the rules another way?

It doesn't actually forbid them. It says "should not but may", which I
read as intending "should" in the Agoran sense.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Loose Interpretation League
  - From: Elliott Hird

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Loose Interpretation League
  - From: Elliott Hird
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Loose Interpretation League
  - From: Elliott Hird
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Loose Interpretation League
  - From: Craig Daniel
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Loose Interpretation League
  - From: Elliott Hird

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Where are my macks?
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Fix
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Loose Interpretation League
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Loose Interpretation League
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread