N.B. auditing the IBA doesn't create rests, it just destroys cards.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 07:07, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com
wrote:
I intend, with Notice, to audit the IBA.
I leave the IBA.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:41, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
N.B. auditing the IBA doesn't create rests, it just destroys cards.
Didn't notice that changed with coppro's revision.
BobTHJ
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:48, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
I deposit 3 * X Crop for 300zm.
This fails, you have no X crops to deposit.
BobTHJ
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:48, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
I deposit 3 * X Crop for 300zm.
This fails, you have no X crops to deposit.
comex, I believe your 'Ask Bob' finction is broken: BobTHJ's
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 11:44 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
This was supposed to be sent as part of my recent automated action
e-mail but there must be a bug:
I award the patent title Champion to coppro
I award the patent title Champion to ais523
I award the patent title Champion to c.
I
2009/10/2 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
I CFJ on: The Short Logical Ruleset is neither short nor logical.
Using the words short and long to refer to two different versions of
the same document is pretty commonly accepted, even if they're both
long compared to other documents.
--
-Tiger
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 13:12 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
I come off hold.
I go on hold.
Interesting timing!
Congrats on your wins, by the way.
--
ais523
Perhaps a winning condition should be having won the game in each currently
recognized way.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 1:48 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 11:44 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
This was supposed to be sent as part of my recent automated action
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps a winning condition should be having won the game in each currently
recognized way.
Paradox, you can't satisfy that winning condition without satisfying it first.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
Perhaps a winning condition should be having won the game in each
currently
recognized way.
Paradox, you can't satisfy that winning
10 matches
Mail list logo