On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
CFJ, disqualifying Tanner L. Swett: In the message quoted in
evidence, Tanner L. Swett gained at least one erg.
I don't think you've assigned this CFJ yet. Do you intend to?
—Tanner L. Swett
G. wrote:
I sit up.
You were standing, so by CFJ 2607 this is ineffective.
I make myself Supreme (if I'm not already).
You were already.
On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 14:01 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
NoV: Tanner L. Swett violated Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by failing to
publish an opinion for 2871a.
Only one of the three panelists (Yally) has opined, which is not a
majority. The overtime period has recently ended, so as CotC, I act
for
On 10-10-17 04:46 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2884
=== CFJ 2884 (Interest Index = 0)
Bucky CAN register by announcement
I
coppro wrote:
I set the II of this case to 1, judge it TRUE, and create a capacitor in
my possession for the judgment.
NttPF
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
=== CFJ 2888 (Interest Index = 0)
Judge: Tanner L. Swett
CoE, accepted: this was ineffective, Tanner was supine (I hadn't
yet updated the DB to be
Tanner L. Swett wrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
=== Â CFJ 2888 (Interest Index = 0) Â
Judge: Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Tanner L. Swett
CoE, accepted: Â this was ineffective, Tanner
On 10-10-17 05:25 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2890
=== CFJ 2890 (Interest Index = 0)
It is generally POSSIBLE for me to make a proposal
Undistributable for a fee.
coppro wrote:
=== CFJ 2890 (Interest Index = 0)
TRUE. Not being permitted to perform something is different than being
NttPF
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
G. wrote:
Therefore, in light of this complete silence, I use the powers granted
me by R217, and state that it is (a) for the good of the game; (b) in
keeping with game custom; and (c) in keeping with the primacy of R754(2)
definitional clauses
coppro wrote:
I vote FOR the Decisions to adopt proposals 6858, 6861 and 6862 and
AGAINST the Decisions to adopt any other proposals that I can vote on.
These were ineffective, you still have 21 Rests.
Taral wrote:
6858 O 1 1.0 G. The Robot
6859 O 1 2.0 ais523 Distributed Proposal 6830
6860 O 2 2.0 KebaA Perpetuum mobile is possible
6861 O 1 1.0 omd Make anarchy more interesting
6862 O 0 1.0 Wooble Refugitivize
G. wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
G. wrote:
Therefore, in light of this complete silence, I use the powers granted
me by R217, and state that it is (a) for the good of the game; (b) in
keeping with game custom; and (c) in keeping with the primacy of R754(2)
definitional
13 matches
Mail list logo
