On 02/02/2009, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
>>
>> On 1 Feb 2009, at 23:42, Taral wrote:
>>
>>> I intend to make Bayes inactive without objection. Mail's' bouncing
>>> again.
>>
>> rutian doesn't presently run a mail server.
>
> ehird does not appear to be i
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
>
> On 1 Feb 2009, at 23:42, Taral wrote:
>
>> I intend to make Bayes inactive without objection. Mail's' bouncing again.
>
> rutian doesn't presently run a mail server.
ehird does not appear to be interested in Bayes any longer, although e
left
On 1 Feb 2009, at 23:42, Taral wrote:
I intend to make Bayes inactive without objection. Mail's' bouncing
again.
rutian doesn't presently run a mail server.
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Sgeo wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Sgeo wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Historical annotation:
>>>
>>> Why no commentary on December's Historical Rule?
>>
>> Positioning is everything: I
On Jan 26, 2009, at 4:54 PM, Chester Mealer wrote:
I register with the nickname cmealerjr
Welcome (back), cmealerjr!
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Sgeo wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Sgeo wrote:
Any Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by publicly
alleging that the Silent Player has a
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Sgeo wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Sgeo wrote:
>>> Any Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by publicly
>>> alleging that the Silent Player has abandoned the game. A
>>> Player has abandoned the game
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Sgeo wrote:
>> Any Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by publicly
>> alleging that the Silent Player has abandoned the game. A
>> Player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As
>>
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Alexander Smith wrote:
> Warrigal wrote:
>> A likely interpretation is that a copy of rule 1742, but not rule 1742
>> itself, is now a contract. More elaborate: You can't agree to things,
>> only texts. When you agreed to rule 1742, you agreed to its text, so
>> its text became
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Gratuituous: no, you and the AFO collectively made the change - or
> would have, if you hadn't thus fallen afoul of Rules 105 and 2140.
Gratuitous: CFJ 2170 sets a precedent otherwise.
ais523 wrote:
> Rule 2198 is
> sufficiently powerful to change rule 1742 (note that as rule 2198 uses
> the passive, "Contract Changes CAN be made to it", it is rule 2198
> itself, an instrument, that is making the change, as it does not specify
> any other entity that makes the change). (Amending
Warrigal wrote:
> A likely interpretation is that a copy of rule 1742, but not rule 1742
> itself, is now a contract. More elaborate: You can't agree to things,
> only texts. When you agreed to rule 1742, you agreed to its text, so
> its text became a contract as well as a rule. When you amended it
12 matches
Mail list logo