On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:22 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The solution:
> > When the word search is completed, thirteen names of pokemon show up in
> > the grid
>
> Oh... How did I not guess that from the name?
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The solution:
> When the word search is completed, thirteen names of pokemon show up in
> the grid
Oh... How did I not guess that from the name?
I am certainly an idiot.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Side note: Do players feel
> that majority-plus-CotC is more or less warranted when the odd panelist
> expresses a contrary opinion, vs. when e says nothing?)
I would only consider it appropriate when one of the panelists
root wrote:
>> To assign a member to a judicial panel is to add em to its
>> membership, provided that e is qualified to become a member of
>> that panel. To recuse a member from a judicial panel is to remove
>> em from its membership.
>
> Confusing overloading of "assign
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A judicial panel is qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal
> case if and only if it initially has three members, each of whom
> is qualified to become a member of that panel.
s/initially/at the time o
Proto-Proposal: Per-case panels
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2157 (Judicial Panels) by replacing this text:
A judicial panel's membership cannot change,
and if two panels have the same membership then they are the
same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, w
During the week ending March 30, there were no score-worthy events
among contestants of the Fantasy Rules Contest.
-root
7 matches
Mail list logo
