--- On Tue, 24/8/10, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I'm reminded of (Peekee?) submitting a "Protoposal" (instead of
> "Proto-Proposal") and Kelly saying something like "whatever the
> hell that is; presumably should be handled by the Protomotor".
That's actually not a bad idea for an office.
We probably nee
Keba wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:53:40 -0400, Geoffrey Spear
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Sgeo wrote:
CoE: You also do not have enough ergs to do this.
>>>
>>> Enough ergs to discuss something?
>>
>> Well, it was labelled "distributable via fee".
>
> ... and the mail's
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:53:40 -0400, Geoffrey Spear
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Sgeo wrote:
>>> CoE: You also do not have enough ergs to do this.
>>
>> Enough ergs to discuss something?
>
> Well, it was labelled "distributable via fee".
... and the mail's subject was/is "PM protos
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Sgeo wrote:
>> CoE: You also do not have enough ergs to do this.
>
> Enough ergs to discuss something?
Well, it was labelled "distributable via fee".
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Aaron Goldfein
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 19:24, wrote:
>>
>> Proposal "A Perpepuum mobile is possible" (AI=2, II=2, distributable via
>> fee)
>>
>> {{{
>> Enact a new Rule with power=2 entitled "Perpepuum mobile":
>>
>> The Perpepuum mobile (PM) is
5 matches
Mail list logo
