Accepted. I'll clean up that part of the report - I'm doing it manually
right now, but I really should automate it. Sorry about that.
~ Roujo
On 2013-07-29 5:14 AM, "Charles Walker" wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2013, at 03:52, Jonathan Rouillard
> wrote:
>
> Sitting: Turiski
> Walker
>
It might be because of Rule 2378, "Court Protector". Since the AaL
seems to be the backup CotC, maybe you wanted to tag him in your
reports.
~ Roujo
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Roujo wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> Clerk's Docket
>>
On 12 March 2013 03:20, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Admitted, it was 11 Mar 13. (Obviously I missed editing that part
> before sending it out.)
I just didn't want to consider the cosmological implications of
ratifying that statement.
FKA441344 wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
[...]
Recent events
[...]
Mon 28 May 07:52:13 3221 initiated by FKA441344
Fri 1 Jun 23:23:08 3208 judged FALSE by ais523
Sun 3 Jun 00:51:38 BobTHJ registers
Sun 3 Jun 17:22:48 3212 assigned to omd
Sun 3 Jun 17:24:40 321
Tanner Swett wrote:
> Come to think of it, I sit, and set my judicial rank to 3.
Judicial ranks no longer exist (they were repealed along with
interest indices).
Tanner Swett wrote:
> I stand.
You can't do that directly, you have to sit and then wait for the
next rotation.
On Tue, 19 May 2009, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> 2009/5/19 Alex Smith :
>> NoVing shouldn't be some sort of heavyweight drastic action, that's what
>> the courts are for. It should be a way to give people wrist-slaps for
>> late reports, etc.
>>
> Spending one note to destroy one rest does sound log
2009/5/19 Alex Smith :
> On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 13:37 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Elliott Hird
>> wrote:
>> > 2009/5/19 Geoffrey Spear :
>> >> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> >>> Sun 17 May 21:30:09 2499 comex recused
>> >>> Sun 17 May 21:
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 13:37 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
> > 2009/5/19 Geoffrey Spear :
> >> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >>> Sun 17 May 21:30:09 2499 comex recused
> >>> Sun 17 May 21:31:40 2507-08 comex recused
>
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> Gratuitous arguments: I identified the contract as the one named UNDEAD.
> If that contract doesn't exist, clearly the intent fails.
If there's one that has that name, but don't know it exists, have you
"clearly" identified it?
If there's more than one t
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 18:15 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You may need it, but it doesn't mean that you can compel it or that you're
> > going to get it. -Goethe.
>
> Then the CotC is just going to have to assign CFJ 2223.
But t
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You may need it, but it doesn't mean that you can compel it or that you're
> going to get it. -Goethe.
Then the CotC is just going to have to assign CFJ 2223.
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Errata
>> --
>> CFJ 2223 was not initiated because the UNDEAD contract either doesn't
>> exist, or ais523 is not a party to it and it is not a pledge. (TODO:
>> if no evidence of pledg
On 27 Oct 2008, at 21:58, comex wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Errata
--
CFJ 2223 was not initiated because the UNDEAD contract either doesn't
exist, or ais523 is not a party to it and it is not a pledge. (TODO:
if no evidence of pledgehood by
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ? I just did ?
nevermind.
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ais523 brought up another possibility so let me add: I am unaware of
>> the existence any pledge with the above identifier (merely backs up the
>> accepted COE on behalf of Murphy). -Goe
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523 brought up another possibility so let me add: I am unaware of
> the existence any pledge with the above identifier (merely backs up the
> accepted COE on behalf of Murphy). -Goethe
You did not address the claim that
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2008, at 23:01, Charles Reiss wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 22:22, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> 2223 ais523UNDEAD PT ends 10/23 05:02:46
>>
>> Claim of Error: ais523 is not a party to
On 20 Oct 2008, at 23:01, Charles Reiss wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 22:22, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[snip]
2223 ais523UNDEAD PT ends 10/23
05:02:46
Claim of Error: ais523 is not a party to UNDEAD and it is not a
pledge, so this case was not in
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 15:59, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I harvest 2204, the number of a recent CFJ, for 2 WRV.
>> I harvest 2214, the number of a recent CFJ, for 2 WRV (using X for 2s).
>> I harvest 2210, the number of a recent CFJ, for 2 WRV (using X for 2s).
>
> Er, if that last
comex wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ais523 wrote:
>>> CoE: This does not contain a list of active Monsters.
>> Denied. Activity is not defined for the Monster, thus the list was
>> empty, thus the report was accurate by omission.
>
> I would di
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>> CoE: This does not contain a list of active Monsters.
>
> Denied. Activity is not defined for the Monster, thus the list was
> empty, thus the report was accurate by omission.
I would disagree with you there,
2008/7/19 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> tusho wrote:
>
>> 2008/7/19 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> ehrid (aka Teh Cltohed Mna ...)
>>
>> CoE: No longer.
>
> Please explain this more clearly.
>
>
Someone deregistered ehrid, sometime. :p
tusho wrote:
> 2008/7/19 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> ehrid (aka Teh Cltohed Mna ...)
>
> CoE: No longer.
Please explain this more clearly.
On Jun 22, 2008, at 12:30 PM, comex wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's now well past tomorrow.
You know, I had already published my apology when you sent this
message.
Actually, my message fell into a grey area, and got sent out Fri
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's now well past tomorrow.
You know, I had already published my apology when you sent this message.
On Jun 22, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
OscarMeyr wrote:
I initiate a criminal CFJ against comex, for violating Rule 1504 by
not publishing eir apology as per the sentence from CFJ 1942 within
the time frame specified in R1504. (See evidence above.)
Already prosecuted via CFJ 2022.
OscarMeyr wrote:
> I initiate a criminal CFJ against comex, for violating Rule 1504 by
> not publishing eir apology as per the sentence from CFJ 1942 within
> the time frame specified in R1504. (See evidence above.)
Already prosecuted via CFJ 2022. Want to retract this one?
> Is it just me
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I STILL don't recall seeing an apology for CFJ 1942, and I see nothing in
> the business archive at agoranomic from comex indicating otherwise. Would
> someone please verify my memory, lest I file a trivially INNOCENT c
OscarMeyr wrote:
>> 1935aais523, Eris,Murphy, BobTHJ, Sat 7 Jun 01:05:41
>>ehird, Ivan Hope OscarMeyr
>
> Do my fellow panelists care to propose a decision in this case?
Fix the loophole in Rule 1504 legislatively, then REMAND.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 1935aais523, Eris,Murphy, BobTHJ, Sat 7 Jun 01:05:41
>> ehird, Ivan Hope OscarMeyr
>
> Do my fellow panelists care to propose a decision in this case?
AFFIRM.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
31 matches
Mail list logo
