On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:10 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 07:44 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> > Parties are encouraged to suggest new categories and/or remove
>> > categories no longer in use by amending the category list in this
>> > contract using the mechanism spe
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
> number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each
> ordinary decision listed below. Each decision is identified by the
> number of the proposal the decision is about.
The above bo
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> tusho wrote:
>
>> 2008/8/6 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Why?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Paradox possibility, presumably.
>
> The statements are on separate issues anyway; one on assigning
> prerogatives after the end of the "one week before the start of
> the month"
tusho wrote:
> 2008/8/6 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Why?
>>
>>
>
> Paradox possibility, presumably.
The statements are on separate issues anyway; one on assigning
prerogatives after the end of the "one week before the start of
the month" period, the other on assigning them before the
begin
2008/8/6 Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:30, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > In an equity case, this sort of word-twisting is not appropriate, if
>> > the Nethack sense
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/8/6 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Why?
>
> Paradox possibility, presumably.
>
I don't see how any of the possible combinations of FALSE and TRUE in
the two cases could lead to paradoxes, though some combinations may
lead to conflicting arguments
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm also not sure if we should even let the equity court handle
>> disputes over private pledges that have absolutely nothing to do with
>> Agora just because they claim to be intended t
2008/8/6 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why?
>
>
Paradox possibility, presumably.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm also not sure if we should even let the equity court handle
> disputes over private pledges that have absolutely nothing to do with
> Agora just because they claim to be intended to be bound by the rules
> of Agora. A
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:30, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > In an equity case, this sort of word-twisting is not appropriate, if
> > the Nethack sense of "ascend" was understood to be the relevant term
> > i
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In an equity case, this sort of word-twisting is not appropriate, if
> the Nethack sense of "ascend" was understood to be the relevant term
> in the spirit of the contract and the eyes of the parties. -Goethe
On the other h
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 11:25 -0400, ihope wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Elliott Hird
>>> I initiate an equity case regarding the pledge regarding Nethack
>>> mentioned in the above thread (parties: ihope). By eir own admission
>>> ihope has not ascen
On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 07:44 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > Parties are encouraged to suggest new categories and/or remove
> > categories no longer in use by amending the category list in this
> > contract using the mechanism specified in section 2.
What does the contract look like now? The version I
13 matches
Mail list logo
