On Jan 15, 2008 10:44 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. > > Really? I only see him once in the Registrar's report, and that's when pikhq (sorry, not comex) tried to register him and failed. I see no e-mail for him. -- -----Iammars www.jmcteague.com
