On Tuesday 15 January 2008 20:42:40 Iammars wrote: > 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?
Steve Wallace is c/o himself.
