I entered a rotation into the database, but forgot to add the
comment before assigning 2363. (I blame my head cold.) The net
effect of this is that I'm sitting instead of standing; all other
sitting players would be sitting anyway, due to recent assignments.
comex wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Fri 13 Feb 18:15:40 comex +2 02/09:001 (if uncontested)
>> 02/09:001 18:15:40 comex Murphy 18682CFJ 2339
>
> Hmm?
Sorry, copied the wrong name. Fixed in draft.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Also, I think some of these are
> duplicates (I haven't checked the numbers carefully).
My mistake, the last six are duplicates.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Fri 13 Feb 18:15:40 comex +2 02/09:001 (if uncontested)
> 02/09:001 18:15:40 comex Murphy 18682CFJ 2339
Hmm?
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any Notice of Violation
> alleging a rule violation prior to the adoption of this rule
> is invalid. If this rule has existed for at least 200 days,
> then any player CAN (by announcement) cause it t
ais523 wrote:
> Murphy wrote:
> {{{
> I pledge to transfer a prop from myself to the eventual judge of these
> CFJs for giving em eight cases at once.
> }}}
> Did this ever happen? (A reminder seems to make more sense than an
> equity case for something like this...)
I've already given you one th
2009/2/9 comex :
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> No it has to do with showing names/aliases. That's the "name" that shows up
>> in the archives themselves when no name outside of the actual <> address is
>> supplied.
>>
>> Look at the archive list's address shown on comex'
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> No it has to do with showing names/aliases. That's the "name" that shows up
> in the archives themselves when no name outside of the actual <> address is
> supplied.
>
> Look at the archive list's address shown on comex's last two messages:
> o
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org is the default reply-to address for the
> Agora mailing lists. It's something of a bug at your end, in that your
> mail client's showing the reply-to rather than the From as the author.
> There's probably some way to change th
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 20:17 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> From the thread going on in Business right now:
>
> ---
> On 2/9/09, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I contest the last 5 of these. Punishing em 6 times for what is
> > essentially the same inaction is manifestly unjust, and may break R101.
>
> A
2009/2/9 Jonatan Kilhamn :
> From the thread going on in Business right now:
>
> ---
> On 2/9/09, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I contest the last 5 of these. Punishing em 6 times for what is
>> essentially the same inaction is manifestly unjust, and may break R101.
>
> Alright, then I submit the following
>From the thread going on in Business right now:
---
On 2/9/09, Alex Smith wrote:
> I contest the last 5 of these. Punishing em 6 times for what is
> essentially the same inaction is manifestly unjust, and may break R101.
Alright, then I submit the following NoVs:
(snip)
---
The mail adress thi
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 08:49 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> The following proposals are made as a part of the Anarchist's weekly
> duties. Said duties have not been performed within the tme limit, so I
> hereby deputise for the office regarding this duty.
>
> Proposal: Repeal R2147
> > Repeal Rule
On 2/9/09, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> I realised that after posting. Is there anything I could do officially
> to fix this? Post another message adding to that one, posting a new
> one declaring that one void, or nothing at all?
I believe you can validly retract those proposals, then deputise to
su
>Geoffrey Spear wrote
> wrote:
>> The following proposals are made as a part of the Anarchist's weekly
>> duties. Said duties have not been performed within the tme limit, so I
>> hereby deputise for the office regarding this duty.
>>
>> Proposal: Repeal R2147
>>> Repeal Rule 2147 (Protectorates)
>
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> The following proposals are made as a part of the Anarchist's weekly
> duties. Said duties have not been performed within the tme limit, so I
> hereby deputise for the office regarding this duty.
>
> Proposal: Repeal R2147
>> Repeal Rule 214
H. Insulator, I believe this is the current status of Rests; I'm
removing the non-note-related parts from the Conductor's report:
Rests
-
comex - 6
ehird - 5
Murphy - 12
pikhq - 2
Quazie - 2
root - 1
Sgeo - 2
Taral - 2
w1n5t0n - 2
All other persons have no Rests.
History
---
Fri 9 Jan 0
17 matches
Mail list logo
