On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 13:16 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:06 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 08:04 -0400, comex wrote:
I initiate a criminal case against pikhq, for breaching Rule 104 by
not
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:21 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you sure? tusho was never awarded MWoP, despite winning. (E was
> deregistered before anyone had a chance to award the title; I will not
> here go into the argument about whether e ought to have been awarded it
> or not.)
pi
On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 13:16 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:06 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 08:04 -0400, comex wrote:
> >> I initiate a criminal case against pikhq, for breaching Rule 104 by
> >> not being Michael Norrish.
> > With 2 suppo
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:06 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 08:04 -0400, comex wrote:
>> I initiate a criminal case against pikhq, for breaching Rule 104 by
>> not being Michael Norrish.
> With 2 support, I intend to initiate a criminal case against pikhq for
> breach
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
> But what about in the context of Rule 2193? As a new amendment, ought
> we to let it use archaisms? Or should we interpret "the first game"
> as, just, "the game"?
Actually, I'm going to contradict myself. R104 was never altered, therefore
the referent of "th
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>> Are we in the first game, or the (number of
>>> game wins + 1)th game?
>>
>> The way Agora has been structured since ?1995, there is no "Nth game",
>> w
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> Are we in the first game, or the (number of
>>game wins + 1)th game?
>
> The way Agora has been structured since ?1995, there is no "Nth game",
> we're in just "the game". The phrase "the f
comex wrote:
> Are we in the first game, or the (number of
>game wins + 1)th game?
The way Agora has been structured since ?1995, there is no "Nth game",
we're in just "the game". The phrase "the first game", in the context
of R104, has a special meaning, though: it refer
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:19 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Gratuitous argument on the second CFJ: See the most recent self-ratified
>> IADoP's report. (The report of 26 Aug 2008 listed pikhq as Speaker, who
>> self-evidently is not Michael Norrish.)
>
> Yes, but "shall be" and "is" are q
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gratuitous argument on the second CFJ: See the most recent self-ratified
> IADoP's report. (The report of 26 Aug 2008 listed pikhq as Speaker, who
> self-evidently is not Michael Norrish.)
The IADoP's report doesn't se
Goethe wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, ihope wrote:
>> I CFJ on the following: The Speaker for the first game shall be
>> Michael Norrish. I CFJ on the following: The Speaker for the current
>> game of Agora shall be Michael Norrish.
>
> Someone really, really, really, really should put this in the
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 6:55 PM, ihope wrote:
>
>> I CFJ on the following: The Speaker for the first game shall be
>> Michael Norrish. I CFJ on the following: The Speaker for the current
>> game of Agora shall be Michael Norri
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, ihope wrote:
> I CFJ on the following: The Speaker for the first game shall be
> Michael Norrish. I CFJ on the following: The Speaker for the current
> game of Agora shall be Michael Norrish.
Someone really, really, really, really should put this in the FAQ.
Or make it an abb
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:55 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the following: The Speaker for the first game shall be
> Michael Norrish. I CFJ on the following: The Speaker for the current
> game of Agora shall be Michael Norrish.
See CFJ 1534.
-root
14 matches
Mail list logo
