Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Ever-so-Late Herald
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So did that self-ratify? No; reports don't self-ratify generally, just the portions of them that detail holdings of assets. I don't think there's a good argument to be made that a patent title is an asset since it's not explicitly defined as one; R2166's "defined as such" seems fairly unambiguous to me.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Ever-so-Late Herald
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Found this... >> >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Later, on Feb 7th, pikhq proto'd awarding comex Scamster, > deregistering em and creating a power 4 rule banning comex from > registering. As far as I can tell, e never went on to propose it, and > simply awarded the patent title in eir Notary report unilaterally. Who knows? Maybe it was effective (e.g. my most recent CFJ). Proof that comex is a Scamster: e managed to scam getting the title "Scamster." But then e must have deserved it so it wasn't a scam. So there's no proof that e is a Scamster. er... -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Ever-so-Late Herald
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 12:24:01 Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Found this... > > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Later, on Feb 7th, pikhq proto'd awarding comex Scamster, > deregistering em and creating a power 4 rule banning comex from > registering. As far as I can tell, e never went on to propose it, and > simply awarded the patent title in eir Notary report unilaterally. > So did that self-ratify?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Ever-so-Late Herald
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Found this... > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Later, on Feb 7th, pikhq proto'd awarding comex Scamster, deregistering em and creating a power 4 rule banning comex from registering. As far as I can tell, e never went on to propose it, and simply awarded the patent title in eir Notary report unilaterally.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Ever-so-Late Herald
Found this... On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > PF: > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Was going to suggest it anyway. I support this. -Goethe >> >> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote: >>> I nominate myself for Herald. I SUPPORT this. I consent to this >>> nomination. > > Also, I think I have to do it: COE denied on both pikhq and comex > holding the patent title scamster (no evidence for pikhq, for comex, > the first voting results for 5282 reported adoption, but the proposal > actually failed (was corrected immediately after). > > -Goethe > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Ever-so-Late Herald
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote: >>> Could someone else support this? At the moment, I can't install myself >>> as herald due to failed quorum. > > I thought this had a quorum of 3? And that's why we need both Read the Ruleset week, and to make Dependent Actions read better. R879, second half of parenthetical section. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Ever-so-Late Herald
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, comex wrote: > On Feb 1, 2008 9:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Also, I think I have to do it: COE denied on both pikhq and comex >> holding the patent title scamster (no evidence for pikhq, for comex, >> the first voting results for 5282 reported adoption, but the proposal >> actually failed (was corrected immediately after). > > Ohhh now I remember. OK, back to the awarding-myself-scamster idea then. Shouldn't your line here be "CURSES! FOILED AGAIN!"? -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Ever-so-Late Herald
On Feb 1, 2008 9:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, I think I have to do it: COE denied on both pikhq and comex > holding the patent title scamster (no evidence for pikhq, for comex, > the first voting results for 5282 reported adoption, but the proposal > actually failed (was corrected immediately after). Ohhh now I remember. OK, back to the awarding-myself-scamster idea then.
