On Jan 15, 2008 10:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Iammars wrote: > > > Since Steve Wallace is not a game, he cannot be a nomic either. Since he > > is a nomic, proclaiming falsely that something is a protective decree to > > him is not a violation of Rule 2159, therefore I judge FALSE. > > This does not address either of the recommendations from woggle's > arguments in 1860a. > > Ah missed that conversation in my mailbox. Steve Wallace is c/o comex, right?
-- -----Iammars www.jmcteague.com
