Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > My opinion is FALSE. Since my nickname change was not posted to a > public forum, nor even a forum that most Agorans subscribe to, it was > not known to Agora at large, making the name "Nuas Te" ambiguous. > (Subjectively ambiguous, that is.) Now that I have used the nickname, > it is known to Agora at large, meaning that the action would succeed > if it were tried again. Yep.
DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > I transfer a ruble to Nuas Te. Thank you. —Nuas te
DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
Would, even. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:36 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote: > You will nod you, indeed! > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 18, 2012, at 9:43 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > >> I transfer a ruble to Nuas Te. >> >> -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
You will nod you, indeed! Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2012, at 9:43 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > I transfer a ruble to Nuas Te. > > -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 1:21 PM, omd wrote: > CFJ: An action taken with Agoran Consent "depends on objections or > notice" as used in Rule 1728. > > Arguments: > > Arguably, Consent depends on objections. Of course Consent depends on objections. Whether it goes through or not depends on how many objections you get; therefore, it depends on objections in almost the same sense that "without 3 objections" depends on objections. Besides that, the rule doesn't work properly if Consent doesn't count as depending on objections. —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
On 31 July 2011 05:23, Pavitra wrote: > R2328. Sigh.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
On 07/30/2011 11:19 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: > Since when do we have partnerships again? R2328.
DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
Since when do we have partnerships again?
DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
On 7/30/11 8:20 PM, omd wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:00 PM, woggle wrote: >> I create a Promise in my own possession with the following text and no >> conditions and immediately cash it: "This is a message sent on behalf >> of The name of this agreement is this sentence.. I intend, with Agoran >> Consent, to register." > > I weakly object, because I don't see how this differs from past > agreements that were rejected. (Unless this is a scam, in which case > I don't get it.) scshunt already caused the intent to be resolved. Agoran Consent doesn't require waiting a couple days (even though objections/notice do); see also my recent fix proposal. - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
On 07/30/2011 10:01 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 20:00, woggle wrote:
>
>> I hereby publish the following agreement intended to be an Agoran person:
>> {{{
>> 1. This is an agreement governed by the rules of Agora and is intended
>> to be a person under its rules.
>>
>> 2. The name of this agreement is this sentence.
>>
>> 3. Parties to this agreement CAN send public messages on behalf of this
>> agreement with the consent of the other parties to this agreement.
>>
>> 4. Parties to this agreement CAN amend this agreement with the consent
>> of the
>> other parties to this agreement.
>>
>> 5. All amendments to this agreement and actions taken by this agreement are
>> only effective if sent to an Agoran public forum.
>>
>> 6. The parties to this agreement are scshunt, Pavitra, woggle.
>> }}}
>>
>> I create a Promise in my own possession with the following text and no
>> conditions and immediately cash it: "This is a message sent on behalf
>> of The name of this agreement is this sentence.. I intend, with Agoran
>> Consent, to register."
>>
>> - woggle
>>
>>
>> I support the intent and create a Promise with the following text and no
> conditions and immediately cash it: "This is a message sent on behalf of The
> name of this agrement is this sentence.. I register."
>
> -scshunt
>
I confirm that I did in fact consent to all this.
Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
Pavitra wrote:
> On Saturday 22 November 2008 05:15:23 pm Warrigal wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Elliott Hird
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I agree to the following:
>>> {{{
>>> Raargh! A public contract identifying itself as such.
>>> A pledge is a low-priority office whose report includes the Short
>>> . . .
>>> spread his claws, And welcome little fishes in With gently
>>> smiling jaws!' 'I'm sure those are not the
>>> }}}
>> I totally agree to this as well.
>>
>> --Warrigal the Agreeer
>
> WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE
inorite?
DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
On Saturday 22 November 2008 05:15:23 pm Warrigal wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Elliott Hird
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree to the following:
> > {{{
> > Raargh! A public contract identifying itself as such.
> > A pledge is a low-priority office whose report includes the Short
> > . . .
> > spread his claws, And welcome little fishes in With gently
> > smiling jaws!' 'I'm sure those are not the
> > }}}
>
> I totally agree to this as well.
>
> --Warrigal the Agreeer
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
On 22 Nov 2008, at 22:31, Roger Hicks wrote: Did you forget co-authorship: Bayes? Wow, that line wasn't even hard-coded.
DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 15:28, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to the following:
> {{{
> Raargh! A public contract identifying itself as such.
Did you forget co-authorship: Bayes?
BobTHJ
