FYI: B's war judgement declared ineffective on a technicality. (I was
trying to appeal it on the grounds that the persons behind it didn't
discuss it in Agora first, nor use their Agoran roles in executing it.)
Original Message
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:10:30 +
From: 0x44
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
FYI: B's war judgement declared ineffective on a technicality. (I was
trying to appeal it on the grounds that the persons behind it didn't
discuss it in Agora first, nor use their Agoran roles in executing it.)
I'd
Wooble wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
FYI: B's war judgement declared ineffective on a technicality. (I was
trying to appeal it on the grounds that the persons behind it didn't
discuss it in Agora first, nor use their Agoran roles in
TTttCN
Original Message
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:28:17 -0800
From: Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Accessorizing
pikhq wrote:
I create the following agreement:
[snip]
7) A Jester's Cap may be put on or taken off.
So much for
On Saturday 08 December 2007 18:53:27 Ed Murphy wrote:
TTttCN
Original Message
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:28:17 -0800
From: Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Accessorizing
pikhq wrote:
I create the following agreement:
pikhq wrote:
7) A Jester's Cap may be put on or taken off.
So much for the precedent of CFJ 1628.
The precedent of CFJ *1629* already went away. Consider the Elephant
Contract. ;)
I'd suggest going for the trifecta and mooting 1630, but I'm not sure
that we really want to bring back
6 matches
Mail list logo
