Creature Doctrine
From Blankclubencyclopedia
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{stub}} | {{stub}} | ||
| + | |||
The '''Creature Doctrine''' (2002) served two important and controversial issues. One being that Creature should belong to [[Van der Kloot, Bannus|Bannus]] just as much as it should belong to [[Barbour, Bradley|Brad]] and [[Aicher, Jesse|Jesse]]. Also it inducted [[Van der Kloot, Bannus|Bannus]] into the [[Blank Club]] as the last member to this date. The doctrine reads: | The '''Creature Doctrine''' (2002) served two important and controversial issues. One being that Creature should belong to [[Van der Kloot, Bannus|Bannus]] just as much as it should belong to [[Barbour, Bradley|Brad]] and [[Aicher, Jesse|Jesse]]. Also it inducted [[Van der Kloot, Bannus|Bannus]] into the [[Blank Club]] as the last member to this date. The doctrine reads: | ||
Current revision as of 16:40, 10 March 2006
 | This article is a stub This article is as short as the Joshua game and has been worked on as much as the Epic Story.
|
The Creature Doctrine (2002) served two important and controversial issues. One being that Creature should belong to Bannus just as much as it should belong to Brad and Jesse. Also it inducted Bannus into the Blank Club as the last member to this date. The doctrine reads:
Before the Blank Club members signed there were several contentious revisions to be made.
1. Bannus had listed Luke Barbour as witness and that was changed with out dispute.
2. Bannus spelt Evan's name wrong and although this was changed quickly several sparks of anger were sent across the lunch table at this.
3. The last and most touchy change was giving Bannus, Jesse, and Bradley each 33% rather then the 50% for Bannus and 25% for Brad and Jesse. After several lunch periods of debate this was settled.
