Re: [s-d] [s-b] Administrivia

Joel Uckelman on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:02:53 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Administrivia

To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Administrivia
From: Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:02:51 +0100
Comments: In-reply-to Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> message dated "Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:45:23 -0800."
In-reply-to: <49A2E0B3.5080502@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <376910.80954.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <6bf32280902230916m7d5124cdjb291e84f692123bb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <49A2E0B3.5080502@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thus spake Ed Murphy:
> comex wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM, M P Darke <darkemalcolm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrot
> e:
> >> I submit a Motion to Add.
> > 
> > Fails, you didn't specify who you intend to add.
> 
> Proto:  Amend Rule 348 by appending this text:
> 
>       An alleged Motion to Add that is submitted by a non-Player and
>       does not explicitly specify a target counts as a Motion to Add
>       the submitter.


So, what's happening now? Has everyone dediced to resume B at some 
long-past state?

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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Administrivia
  - From: Elliott Hird
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Administrivia
  - From: Craig Daniel

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Administrivia
  - From: comex
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Administrivia
  - From: Ed Murphy

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] A real quick fix.
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Administrivia
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Administrivia
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Administrivia
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread