On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 02:53 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
That is, I object to all dependent actions is at the recordkeepors'
discretion, because one can only be certain that one has fully
unpacked the statement by reading every public message in a certain
time frame exhaustively.
By contrast, I
2009/8/29 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
I intend to audit the IBA.
Sure thing, Ron Paul.
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 13:22, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I play Committee to make FIXME undistributable.
I give notice that I intend to audit BobTHJ. This proposal would
remove the loophole e created that
comex wrote:
I publish the following NoV: BobTHJ violated R2143 (Power-1) by
failing to complete the Anarchist's weekly duties in the week of
August 10-16.
I intend, with support, to publish the following NoV: BobTHJ violated
R2143 (Power-1) by failing to complete the Anarchist's weekly
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
comex wrote:
I publish the following NoV: BobTHJ violated R2143 (Power-1) by
failing to complete the Anarchist's weekly duties in the week of
August 10-16.
I intend, with support, to publish the following NoV: BobTHJ violated
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
comex wrote:
I publish the following NoV: BobTHJ violated R2143 (Power-1) by
failing to complete the Anarchist's weekly duties in the
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't publish NoVs with support.
-coppro
Yes you can...
Where have you been? Dependent actions are broken.
The CFJ saying they work han't been overturned yet. In any case, e
can still intend and gather support,
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't publish NoVs with support.
-coppro
Yes you can...
Where have you been? Dependent actions are broken.
The CFJ saying they work han't been overturned yet. In any case, e
can still intend
Sean Hunt wrote:
Sadly, CFJs have no bearing on reality.
Strictly speaking, while this is mostly true, one of R217's possible
factors in interpreting rules is past judgements. If the rule was
genuinely ambiguous before, the CFJ may be a valid way of disambiguating.
signature.asc
Description:
9 matches
Mail list logo