On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 12:52 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think the analogy fits. A boat traveling from international
waters was somewhere else before it was in international waters.
Unless it was constructed there, but even in that unusual situation,
the material,
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the interest of preserving the intent of the rule (and I should
know, I wrote it), I interpret that 3) does apply, and does take
precedence over 1) and 2). Accordingly, I judge TRUE.
One final point. This judgement, if
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regarding 1903, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM with the
following concurring opinion:
Goethe's original judgement of CFJ 1903 alludes to the following
interpretation:
Questions are not statements. An
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
In the interest of preserving the intent of the rule (and I should
know, I wrote it),
I have no opinion on the rest of the CFJ, but I have to call you out
here: you wrote it with one intent, but voters read it and may have
voted it in with
On 15/03/2008, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
If someone Opined NO WAY on this, how would they Break it?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:14 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/03/2008, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
If someone Opined NO WAY on this, how would they Break it?
By initiating a judicial case?
-root
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:14 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/03/2008, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
If someone Opined NO WAY on this, how would they
root wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:14 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/03/2008, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
If someone Opined NO WAY on this, how
On 15/03/2008, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone should write up an amendment to the effect of if the spot
refers to a recurring type of time period, then each instance of that
type of time period is evaluated separately for violations.
Every millisecond, post a message to a public
Ivan Hope wrote:
On 15/03/2008, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone should write up an amendment to the effect of if the spot
refers to a recurring type of time period, then each instance of that
type of time period is evaluated separately for violations.
Every millisecond, post a
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regarding 1903, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM with the
following concurring opinion:
Goethe's original judgement of CFJ 1903 alludes to the following
interpretation:
Questions are not statements. An
11 matches
Mail list logo
