On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And yet I have yet to see a persuasive argument based on the Rules to
>> back up that opinion.
>
> It doesn't matter whether you see one at this point.
Heh. Well, look at your arguments for appeal. The first half is
irre
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Well, yeah, I discounted that, because I have yet to see a persuasive
>>> argument to the effect that I couldn't just refuse such an equation.
>>
>> Well, yeah, that's the subject of yo
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, yeah, I discounted that, because I have yet to see a persuasive
>> argument to the effect that I couldn't just refuse such an equation.
>
> Well, yeah, that's the subject of your CFJ, but there's plenty of
> opinion a
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, comex wrote:
>>> There is no real way to
>>> compel/force anyone to do anything, without their having agreed to a
>>> contract to that effect, and there never has be
2008/8/11 The PerlNomic Partnership <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic
> Partnership (a public contract).
>
> The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
> number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each
> ord
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 6:51 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, yeah, I discounted that, because I have yet to see a persuasive
> argument to the effect that I couldn't just refuse such an equation.
Well, we could just follow the US Supreme Court and determine that the
existence of a fun
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, comex wrote:
>> There is no real way to
>> compel/force anyone to do anything, without their having agreed to a
>> contract to that effect, and there never has been.
>
> Not true. At least, depending on
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I can't find this on zenith.
>>
>> Regardless, with the support of the panel, I intend to cause the panel
>> to judge REMAND. There are issues to look at
Zefram wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Aha, this was ineffective due to being sent during the discussion
>> period;
>
> Grumble. Why did you say "I need votes" when votes weren't actually valid?
Because I made a mistake. I did say "voting begins at Wed 2 Jul"
on July 1.
Speaking of, I need nomin
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Aha, this was ineffective due to being sent during the discussion
>period;
Grumble. Why did you say "I need votes" when votes weren't actually valid?
-zefram
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Note that this only became a problem with "Take it to equity!" was
>>> adopted; before that, you could go straight to criminal prosecution
>>> of
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, comex wrote:
> There is no real way to
> compel/force anyone to do anything, without their having agreed to a
> contract to that effect, and there never has been.
Not true. At least, depending on how the R101 case turns out, not necessarily
true. If equity settlements can
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Note that this only became a problem with "Take it to equity!" was
>> adopted; before that, you could go straight to criminal prosecution
>> of the members for failing to keep the AFO
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Note that this only became a problem with "Take it to equity!" was
> adopted; before that, you could go straight to criminal prosecution
> of the members for failing to keep the AFO obedient.
I'm not so sure. "Take it to equity!" prevents violations from b
comex wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> (b) definition of equity -- "equity" for partnerships needs to be defined to
>>> explicitly include this rule-imposed requirement on the contract.
>>> One approach might be to imagine that such equity cases
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But its not enforceable because only members can bring a case forward
> that they're in violation, that's the whole thing my proto was trying
> to add (granting Standing to non-parties in this specific type of
> situation).
>
Wooble wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The only instances involving the AFO were subject to "out-of-court"
>> settlements before a precedent was set.
>
> By the way, I think the AFO clearly does devolve its obligations onto
> its members, but in
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> (b) definition of equity -- "equity" for partnerships needs to be defined to
>>> explicitly include this rule-imposed requirement on the contract.
>>> One approach might be to imagine th
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The only instances involving the AFO were subject to "out-of-court"
>> settlements before a precedent was set.
>
> By the way, I think the AFO clearly does devolve its obligation
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> R2145 seems clear and explicit enough to me in defining only those
> that do devolve obligations as persons. I don't really see a reading
> of the rule that would lend itself to ruling otherwise, and I don't
> see any ambiguity in the wording that woul
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, git. :P
>
> Will it run on Red Hat 9? I'm using TortoiseSVN as a front end.
Git's very simple. It runs almost anywhere.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only instances involving the AFO were subject to "out-of-court"
> settlements before a precedent was set.
By the way, I think the AFO clearly does devolve its obligations onto
its members, but in such a way that, since t
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 15:45 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Also, git. :P
> >
> > Will it run on Red Hat 9? I'm using TortoiseSVN as a front end.
>
> I don't know, but git is nice. If all recordkeepors used a
> distributed VCS (git
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, git. :P
>
> Will it run on Red Hat 9? I'm using TortoiseSVN as a front end.
I don't know, but git is nice. If all recordkeepors used a
distributed VCS (git, hg, monotone, doesn't matter which as long as
everyone uses
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We really don't know whether the *current* system is platonic or
> pragmatic. We had a couple cases where it was "obvious" that the text
> of a contract didn't devolve responsibilities (and therefore wasn't).
>
> We haven't
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (b) definition of equity -- "equity" for partnerships needs to be defined to
>> explicitly include this rule-imposed requirement on the contract.
>> One approach might be to imagine that such equity cases really concern an
>
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
> I'm not sure if it is either, but if you go the pragmatic route (which
> is a good idea given the extreme annoyance of finding something was
> never a person, which likely distorts the jurisprudence on devolving
> obligations in the first place),
We re
tusho wrote:
> 2008/8/11 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Assessor and Rulekeepor might not be so bad, now I've finally gotten
>> around to wrapping my head around Subversion. Unfortunately, my server
>> is too old to support the server end. Due to Rule 1450, someone else
>> will need to serve
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:43, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If the original contract envisioned not devolving the obligation well onto
>> the parties (quite likely, in fact), then I don't see what resolution
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> R2145 should probably be
> rewritten to be a bit more pragmatic, but I'm not sure that redefining
> equity to include partnerships properly devolving obligations is the
> best way to do that.
The "Platonic" form (any contract that devolves responsibili
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Maybe the best way to ensure partnerships live up to obligations may
>> be to allow equity to work on claims:
>>
>> ---
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the original contract envisioned not devolving the obligation well onto
> the parties (quite likely, in fact), then I don't see what resolution the
> equity case could reasonably provide beyond finding that it's not a
>
2008/8/11 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Assessor and Rulekeepor might not be so bad, now I've finally gotten
> around to wrapping my head around Subversion. Unfortunately, my server
> is too old to support the server end. Due to Rule 1450, someone else
> will need to serve as Promotor.
You ca
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Maybe the best way to ensure partnerships live up to obligations may
> be to allow equity to work on claims:
>
>
> Proto: Partnership equity, power-2
>
> A
pikhq wrote:
> On 13:54 Mon 11 Aug , Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I go on hold.
>> Does anyone want to be Registrar? I'm required to make a nomination
>> as soon as possible, and I'm fairly likely to just nominate every
>>
Wooble wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:58 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2027a
>>>
>>> Appeal 2027a
Maybe the best way to ensure partnerships live up to obligations may
be to allow equity to work on claims:
Proto: Partnership equity, power-2
Amend Rule 2145 (Partnerships) by appending the following paragraph:
An Equity Cas
On 13:54 Mon 11 Aug , Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I go on hold.
>
> Does anyone want to be Registrar? I'm required to make a nomination
> as soon as possible, and I'm fairly likely to just nominate every
> single player and
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I go on hold.
Does anyone want to be Registrar? I'm required to make a nomination
as soon as possible, and I'm fairly likely to just nominate every
single player and install the one who doesn't notice in time to refuse
eir no
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2048b
>>
>> Appeal 2048b
>
> With
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 1:22 AM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 5:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I nominate each of ais523, BobTHJ, comex, Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr,
>> Quazie, root, Sgeo, Taral, tusho, woggle, and Wooble for each of the
>> offices of Promoto
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:58 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2027a
>>
>> Appeal 2027a
>
> I in
On 13:19 Sat 09 Aug , Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2053
>
> = Criminal Case 2053 =
>
> ehird violated rule 2149 by lying.
>
>
43 matches
Mail list logo
