Ed Murphy wrote:
I intend to judge CFJ 1677 TRUE on behalf of Human Point Two, as a
direct consequence of Judge BobTHJ's judgement of CFJ 1676.
Surely that would be FALSE? BobTHJ's judgement implies that this
in this kind of statement refers to the CFJ.
-zefram
As I interpret it, the judgement of CFJ 1669 means that proposal 4939,
which we thought was a legal distribution of Murphy's Re-divide some
offices proposal, was actually not a legal distribution. Murphy's
proposal is presumably still in the proposal pool. What about the
purported resolution of
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I intend to judge CFJ 1677 TRUE on behalf of Human Point Two, as a
direct consequence of Judge BobTHJ's judgement of CFJ 1676.
Surely that would be FALSE? BobTHJ's judgement implies that this
in this kind of statement refers to the CFJ.
Yes, that's right.
Zefram wrote:
As I interpret it, the judgement of CFJ 1669 means that proposal 4939,
which we thought was a legal distribution of Murphy's Re-divide some
offices proposal, was actually not a legal distribution. Murphy's
proposal is presumably still in the proposal pool. What about the
== CFJ 1659 ==
The phrase by announcement and similar phrases used by the
charter of Primo Corporation, when qualified by the additional
phrase to the Corporate Forum, are not bound by the standard
Rule definition of the
Ian Kelly wrote:
This seems to indicate that a partnership's obligations are only
enforceable to the extent that the partnership's members desire them
to be enforced. Any thoughts?
Erk. I'd say we need to fix that. In real-world contract law there
is the concept of third-party rights in
On 6/8/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
This seems to indicate that a partnership's obligations are only
enforceable to the extent that the partnership's members desire them
to be enforced. Any thoughts?
Erk. I'd say we need to fix that. In real-world contract law there
Ian Kelly wrote:
recently pointed out, the current reading of the first paragraph is
just a truism.
I don't read it as a truism. I prefer a reading that gives it
significance. It seems to me that it is defining a class of Agoran
entity: the binding agreement. We have often referred to these as
On 6/8/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
recently pointed out, the current reading of the first paragraph is
just a truism.
I don't read it as a truism. I prefer a reading that gives it
significance. It seems to me that it is defining a class of Agoran
entity: the binding
Ian Kelly wrote:
Should I then be expecting a refutation of my proto-judgment of CFJ 1660?
I'm not entirely happy with your reasoning on those CFJs, but actually
I was pondering refuting your proto-judgement of CFJ 1659. I think
prohibiting a word or phrase from having contextually-defined
On 6/8/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
Should I then be expecting a refutation of my proto-judgment of CFJ 1660?
I'm not entirely happy with your reasoning on those CFJs, but actually
I was pondering refuting your proto-judgement of CFJ 1659. I think
prohibiting a word or
On Jun 7, 2007, at 4:20 AM, Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
The Registrar's report shall include the following:
...
c) Whether each player is active or inactive, and the date on
which eir status last changed.
I dislike this. I think the reporting requirement for activity
root wrote:
All but the first paragraph is about enforcement. And as Goethe
recently pointed out, the current reading of the first paragraph is
just a truism.
As, presumably, was the previous reading, since the current reading is
just a generalization of the same.
No, the previous
On 6/8/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
All but the first paragraph is about enforcement. And as Goethe
recently pointed out, the current reading of the first paragraph is
just a truism.
As, presumably, was the previous reading, since the current reading is
just a
14 matches
Mail list logo
