On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:28 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but where does it say that attempts to support such an action
must be unambiguously specified?
I CFJ on the statement:
Publishing the message I object,
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:28 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but where does it say that attempts to support such an action
must be unambiguously
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, the by announcement criterion of R478 is not satisfied, because
it specifically only applies to rule-defined actions. Nowhere do the
rules define objecting to a dependent action as an action.
Although Rule 2124 defines
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:56 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although Rule 2124 defines it as a message that must be sent, we treat
objecting very, very much like an action, which we send
pseudo-announcements in order to perform. Or is it a real
announcement? Although Rule 478 defines by
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why? If somebody attempts to perform an action by announcement, and
the action can't be performed by announcement, then obviously the
attempt fails regardless of whether R2208 can be applied to it. It
doesn't matter whether
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:15, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object to every dependent action I can object to. I support every
dependent action I can support.
So you don't want to leave the Protection Racket?
-woggle
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object to every dependent action I can object to. I support every
dependent action I can support.
I'm treating this as ineffective by the precedent of CFJ 1307.
comex wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object to every dependent action I can object to. I support every
dependent action I can support.
I'm treating this as ineffective by the precedent of CFJ 1307.
Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) does not include
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) does not include specify like
the rule relevant to CFJ 1307 did.
Rule 2208/0 (Power=3)
Clarity of Announcements
All attempts to perform an action by announcement fail if the
action
9 matches
Mail list logo
