I slightly mind, but I probably would have done the same thing so meh. Also,
come to think of it, I also abused that contract to your detriment, so maybe
this is just karma.
Gaelan
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:36 PM, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Good point! Based on his recent hashes, he probably is. Therefore:
>
> If Aris’s message initiates any Agoran Decisions, then I vote, and I cause L,
> ATMunn, and Gaelan to vote, for the first of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, Gaelan} which
> is a valid option.
>
> Gaelan, I hope you don’t mind my changing your vote for you, but at least I
> changed it to you...
>
>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote:
>>
>> Hold on, are we sure G. isn't in on it?
>>
>> -twg
>>
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:31 PM, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Like Gaelan, I do the following, and I cause ATMunn to do the following:
>>>
>>> - object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
>>> - if quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, vote for the first of
>>> {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
>>> - if the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection
>>> an incorrect document, point a thumb at Aris for the class-8 crime of
>>> Endorsing Forgery.
>>>
>>> If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I cause L to vote
>>> for the first of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant
>>>>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
>>>>> timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what
>>>>> this
>>>>> means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able to
>>>>> work something out.)
>>>>> -Aris
>>
>>
