Subject:
|
Re: New Ideas for Jambalaya - anyone interested?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.jambalaya
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:02:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
383 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:46:55 GMT, Christopher Weeks <clweeks@eclipse.net>
wrote:
> I doubt that's true. I've come up with several sets of rules for which
> that's just not the case. Keep in mind there is the uber-rule that this
> is a jambalaya box and that you can make any fair trades at all that the
> rules don't regulate. So, you don't so much have to follow the rules as
> simply fail to violate them.
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Ideas for Jambalaya - anyone interested?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Ideas for Jambalaya - anyone interested?
|
| (...) 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)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
