 | | Re: New Ideas for Jambalaya - anyone interested? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | I really think this box will die a horrible, quick death. Once you get more than about 3 rules going, many people are going to get the box, and have NOTHING that meets the rules to grab a piece they want. I would have zero interest in such a box. At (...) (25 years ago, 23-Sep-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: New Ideas for Jambalaya - anyone interested? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) Well, that may be. It appears that there are four people interested and if we four pass it around a couple times, we might agree with you and decide to call it quits. (...) I doubt that's true. I've come up with several sets of rules for which (...) (25 years ago, 23-Sep-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New Ideas for Jambalaya - anyone interested? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Your uber-rule negates all the other rules. So what would be the point? Or maybe I'm not getting what you're saying. Steve (25 years ago, 23-Sep-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New Ideas for Jambalaya - anyone interested? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) The uber-rule is something like "trade with the box trying to improve the value of the assortment." In addition to this (according to how I was thinking of it), you would have to follow the variable rules as well. If the rules are: Trade only (...) (25 years ago, 24-Sep-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya)
|
| | | | |
