2009/7/17 Roger Hicks :
>>> I didn't mess with the font-size (as ehird suggested) but the text-only
>>> version should compensate for this.
Nice site; thanks much. Feature request: can you add a section at the
bottom of thre listing of holdings showing the total # of each card in
circulation,
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 02:40, Taral wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> I transfer a prop from BobTHJ, for re-platonicizing something that was
>>> pragmatic for a reason, to Rodlen, for being someone I chose
>>> completel
On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 14:45 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 16:34 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM, ais523
> >> wrote:
> >>> Ineffective, CoEs have to be done publically, which is secured at power
> >>> 3, and no sufficiently po
ais523 wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 16:34 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM, ais523 wrote:
>>> Ineffective, CoEs have to be done publically, which is secured at power
>>> 3, and no sufficiently powerful rule lets you do that.
>> I Say This Is The Correct Interpretat
On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 16:34 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM, ais523 wrote:
> > Ineffective, CoEs have to be done publically, which is secured at power
> > 3, and no sufficiently powerful rule lets you do that.
>
> I Say This Is The Correct Interpretation And Therefor
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM, ais523 wrote:
> Ineffective, CoEs have to be done publically, which is secured at power
> 3, and no sufficiently powerful rule lets you do that.
I Say This Is The Correct Interpretation And Therefore It Is The
Correct Interpretation?
On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 13:14 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
> > I hereby resolve the Agoran Decision on the Adoption of the following
> > Proposal:
> > (Dictatorship, AI=3, II=0)
>
> Oh yes, and CoE: there was no such decision.
Ineffective, CoEs have to be done publically, which is se
coppro wrote:
> Explanation: Distributed Proposal 6402 enacts a new Rule "Acting on
> Behalf" that says "Acting on behalf of (syn. send messages on behalf of)
> a person (the grantor) with a specified message is equivalent to sending
> a public message authored by the grantor." Equivalence, as use
On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 12:51 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/7/19 Taral :
> > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Benjamin
> > Caplan wrote:
> >> Clearly this means "I hereby judge {comex SHALL ensure that judicial
> >> panels of which e is a member are not assigned as judge in the appeal of
> >> any
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 7:17 AM,
C-walker wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:16 PM, C-walker
> wrote:
>> I intend, without objection, to terminate this pledge.
>
> Having received no objections, I do so, although I am not sure this is
> within the time limit for intents.
14 days; you had almost ex
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I disagree. The first is not fatal to the contract. The zm exchange
> mechanism, while diminished in usefulness without an offer system, is
> still useful. I would have used it today with my AAA crops were it not
> for the fact that a report had
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I intend, without 3 objections, to distribute 'Office IIs with Agoran
> Consent'. (allows office II changes w/ 2 support
Should be 'without 2 objections'. Otherwise, thanks for the intent.
--
C-walker
Statements made in this message may or may
2009/7/19 Taral :
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Benjamin
> Caplan wrote:
>> Clearly this means "I hereby judge {comex SHALL ensure that judicial
>> panels of which e is a member are not assigned as judge in the appeal of
>> any judicial case." (The bit about the contract is a holdover from the
13 matches
Mail list logo
