On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal: But what is truth?
> (AI = 2, please)
Bravo. A well-thought-out balance.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
I wrote:
> I intend to deputize for the Assessor to resolve the Agoran decisions
> to adopt proposals 5585-5650.
>
> I believe the results are as follows. Proofreading is suggested, at
> least for proposals where the results are close enough that an error
> could conceivably affect the overall r
2008/7/26 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> CoE: syntax error.
>
So we've discussed.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 12:05 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gratuitous arguments, just in case nobody else has already said this
> (maybe I have and then forgotten): If somebody states "I CFJ on this
> statement", they're taking the action "I CFJ on this statement" not
> because they're CF
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> #! /usr/bin/perl6
>> Use Agora.pm;
>> Use Agora/ROoA.pm;
>>
>> IF (milling 4 * 8 produces an X crop) == TRUE # otherwise refigure the
>> modulo 1
On Jul 26, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/26 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
You can't do that; I recall filing charges against you for
roughing the
passer, offsides, and related technicalities such as treason.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
Mornington Crescent
2008/7/26 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You can't do that; I recall filing charges against you for roughing the
> passer, offsides, and related technicalities such as treason.
> -
> Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
> OscarMeyr
>
Mornington Crescent.
On Jul 26, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/26 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
In 2082, ehird's threat merits a strong response from Agora. I am
strongly
considering exile.
Oh yeah?? Well I'll exile YOU!
You can't do that; I recall filing charges against you for roughi
2008/7/26 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In 2082, ehird's threat merits a strong response from Agora. I am strongly
> considering exile.
Oh yeah?? Well I'll exile YOU!
In 2081, Goethe's choice of background music merits a strong response
from Agora without regard to the circumstances. I am strongly
considering granting eir request for exile.
In 2082, ehird's threat merits a strong response from Agora. I am
strongly considering exile.
In 2083 and 2084,
Power-3 proposal:
{In Rule 2170, "Who Am I?", put the following before the last paragraph:
"A person can act on behalf of another person (the Absentee) to send a
message if and only if the Absentee consents to this. The Absentee
agreeing to (or being, in the case of partnerships) a contract
allow
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Anything about this in particular that I could change to get your vote?
I dislike the general concept of a profusion of chambers, so no.
-zefram
I have three inquiry cases, four criminal cases (including 2091-92 as a
set), and one equity case (2039, unassignable until a new judge joins
the pool) waiting to be assigned. Supine players are politely requested
to consider sitting up before the next rotation.
Pavitra wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 July 2008 08:53:03 pm Zefram wrote:
>> 5651 O1 1Quazie Left in a lull
> AGAINSTx1
>> 5652 D1 2comex Awful proposal
> AGAINST
>> 5653 O1 1.5 BobTHJ Department of Corrections
> denounce comex x5
>> 5654 D0 2ais523
> FOR
>> 565
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope wrote:
>
>> I agree to the following: {This is a pledge. Ivan Hope CXXVII can
>> leave this contract by announcement. The Beast is a fixed asset. Ivan
>> Hope CXXVII can cause it to be owned by anyone by announcement.
Ivan Hope wrote:
> I agree to the following: {This is a pledge. Ivan Hope CXXVII can
> leave this contract by announcement. The Beast is a fixed asset. Ivan
> Hope CXXVII can cause it to be owned by anyone by announcement.}
>
> I cause The Beast to be owned by Elliott Hird. (Precedent is that you
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby vote:
>>5664 D2 3BobTHJ Chambers II
> AGAINST
Anything about this in particular that I could change to get your vote?
BobTHJ
2008/7/26 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Irrelevant. You can possess a contract-defined asset without
> belonging to that contract (I possess some chits, for instance).
>
>
Ah, true.
This means that contracts can affect non-parties.
Creepy...
2008/7/26 Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Googlebot isn't a person, so in that case, we must analyze a step
> backwards to determine who is most directly responsible for sending
> the message. Some candidates: the person who setup the state for the
> script last or whoever is most responsible
Taral wrote:
>Proto-Proposal: Clarify REMAND vs REASSIGN
That's not a clarification, it's a shift in the balance between these
two options. I like the balance where it is, and don't have your
objection to gratuitous REASSIGNments.
>{Note that these say judgement, not arguments. As worded, neithe
Charles Reiss wrote:
>Also, there should be a strong presumption that excersizing R101
>rights is equitable in order to avoid abridging those rights in an
>equity judgment.
Aha, finally some judicial precedent on what R101 rights mean.
An excellent principle.
-zefram
21 matches
Mail list logo
