On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote:
I remember someone saying that if this went through, e'd NoV
inactives.. What happened to that?
It would be almost impossible to convict them, as there's a reasonable
doubt about whether they read the ruleset and it's impossible to
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Josiah Worcester wrote:
I register.
If the AFO is on hold, the AFO comes off hold.
- H. Agoran Spy pikhq
Back from deep cover, eh? Report in code I hope.
The AFO, as a player, has Ceased to Be.
2009/3/10 Josiah Worcester josi...@gmail.com:
I register.
If the AFO is on hold, the AFO comes off hold.
- H. Agoran Spy pikhq
The AFO is no longer a player.
Goethe wrote:
H. CotC, you may wish to enter all of the above conversation as a
gratuitous argument.
For 2403? 2406? both? other (please specify)?
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
CFJ: {I am obligated to post moo to a Public Forum}
CFJ: {I am obligated to post ooɯ to a Public Forum}
Gratuitous arguments: You just did.
Gratuitous arguments: Fulfilling an obligation doesn't cause it to
cease to exist.
2009/3/10 Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk:
Gratuitous arguments: You just did.
Shall I make new CFJs or shall we go by the precedent of ok, let's
answer what you meant to ask?
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/3/10 Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2402
= Criminal Case 2402 =
Taral violated R2234, a
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I intend, with the consent of the other partners, to amend the AFO by
replacing section 7 with this text:
I object.
7. Once each week, any active player may randomly choose an active
first-class player (any
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:39 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I intend, with the consent of the other partners, to amend the AFO by
replacing section 7 with this text:
I object.
Hit send too early, sorry.
comex wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I intend, with the consent of the other partners, to amend the AFO by
replacing section 7 with this text:
I object.
NttPF, and it doesn't look like the AFO will be allowed to re-register
without this or
2009/3/10 Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com:
I submit the following proposal, named Report Accessibility, AI 1:
I strongly oppose; we have servicable archives of the list and thus
reports and I do not want to lose that.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit the following proposal, named Report Accessibility, AI 1:
Create a new rule of Power 1, named Reports, with the following text:
{{{
When
2009/3/11 comex com...@gmail.com:
AGAINST, see Murphy's message.
Where?
ehird wrote:
2009/3/11 comex com...@gmail.com:
AGAINST, see Murphy's message.
Where?
My letters do look an awful lot like yours (only mine are usually
right side up).
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
,,˙ʇuǝɯǝƃpnɾ ɹoɟ llɐɔ ɐ sı sıɥʇ,, ʇuǝɯǝʇɐʇs ǝɥʇ uo ʇuǝɯǝƃpnɾ ɹoɟ llɐɔ ı
--
ais523
Very cute! It's less confusing than the acceptable communication in
CFJ 1267, tho. -g.
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/3/10 Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2402
= Criminal Case 2402 =
Taral violated
16 matches
Mail list logo
