comex wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I agree with c. here; rule changes have a special standard and absolute
and precise specification is required. �I screwed up. �-G.
On my part, I apologize that I have to leave in the middle of what
looks
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:02, Benjamin
Caplancelestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
comex wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I agree with c. here; rule changes have a special standard and absolute
and precise specification is required. �I screwed
Roger Hicks wrote:
Soanyone want to fix this? If this judgment stands all current
deals are in error since the cards and decks do not exist.
BobTHJ
Why is that? Defining cards isn't secured as far as I see.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:59, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
Soanyone want to fix this? If this judgment stands all current
deals are in error since the cards and decks do not exist.
BobTHJ
Why is that? Defining cards isn't secured as far as I see.
All the rules
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:59, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
Soanyone want to fix this? If this judgment stands all current
deals are in error since the cards and decks do not exist.
BobTHJ
Why is that? Defining cards isn't secured as far as I
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 02:08, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:59, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
Soanyone want to fix this? If this judgment stands all current
deals are in error since the cards and decks do not exist.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
comex clearly believes these rules do not exist at all based on eir
judgment. So which is it? If these rules exist at power=1 (preferable
in my opinion) then someone else should support my appeal so more
appropriate
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 17, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I withdraw my previous comments arguing for power=2, and request an
appeals judgment of REMAND.
No remand please
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taraltar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
seems fairly unambiguous to me as a request to set power to 2.
I support. More common sense
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taraltar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
seems fairly unambiguous to me
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taraltar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
seems fairly
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:46, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
AI is a term defined and used in many places in the rules. There is no
qway to say that setting a rule's AI is unambiguously setting a rule's
power. My interpretation would be that it simply sets its AI. The
alternative
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 14:48 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:46, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
AI is a term defined and used in many places in the rules. There is no
qway to say that setting a rule's AI is unambiguously setting a rule's
power. My interpretation would
coppro wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taraltar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taraltar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I agree with c. here; rule changes have a special standard and absolute
and precise specification is required. I screwed up. -G.
On my part, I apologize that I have to leave in the middle of what
looks like some
16 matches
Mail list logo
