At 09:56 PM 6/29/2011, you wrote:
>On 06/29/11 18:23, Chuck Carroll wrote:
>>I send many warm wishes to Agora and to all current and former Agorans on the
>>occasion of Agora's 18th birthday.
>>
>>Looking over the ruleset, I find myself doubly astonished at its state,
>>compared to its state when
From: omd
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Happy birthday!
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Joshua Murphy wrote:
> Seconded.
>
> -Math321 aka Joshua aka Math321
FYI, you're still not sending
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Joshua Murphy wrote:
> Seconded.
>
> -Math321 aka Joshua aka Math321
FYI, you're still not sending in plain text.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 06/29/11 12:45, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>>
>> Agora can make its own decisions. If, at any time, Agora wishes to
>> counteract a decision, then that decision, rules to the contrary
>> notwithstanding, has no effect. The game of Agora, but not an
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:06, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> 2009/6/29 Roger Hicks :
>> I spend Db D B to gain a Bb note.
>>
>> I spend 3 Db notes, 2 E notes, 5 Eb notes, 2 G notes, 2 A notes, 2 Ab
>> notes, and 9 Bb notes (...)
>>
>> BobTHJ
>>
> According to my records, you only have 7 Bb notes - 6 as
Taral wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What comes next? o.o or O.O?
>
> O.O of course.
Ook!
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> O.O of course.
>
> Eww, little-endianness?
Unordered :P
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Saturday 04 October 2008 01:07:11 pm Taral wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, ehird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What comes next? o.o or O.O?
>
> O.O of course.
Eww, little-endianness?
On 4 Oct 2008, at 23:53, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 2:13 PM, ehird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4 Oct 2008, at 19:07, Taral wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, ehird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What comes next? o.o or O.O?
O.O of course.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"P
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 2:13 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2008, at 19:07, Taral wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What comes next? o.o or O.O?
>>
>> O.O of course.
>>
>> --
>> Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "Please let me know if
On 4 Oct 2008, at 19:07, Taral wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, ehird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What comes next? o.o or O.O?
O.O of course.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
o.o
--
ehird
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What comes next? o.o or O.O?
O.O of course.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 4 Oct 2008, at 03:03, Taral wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:12 PM, ehird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why O.o?
(I'm younger than ihope, if "O.o" means "you are young". :-P)
o.O
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:12 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why O.o?
>
> (I'm younger than ihope, if "O.o" means "you are young". :-P)
o.O
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 3 Oct 2008, at 21:58, Taral wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:40 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And though we are both 15 years old, Agora is younger than me, alas.
O.o
Why O.o?
(I'm younger than ihope, if "O.o" means "you are young". :-P)
--
ehird
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:40 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And though we are both 15 years old, Agora is younger than me, alas.
O.o
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not least because you, er, didn't actually send the message in 1993.
>
> I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth.
I don't li
comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not least because you, er, didn't actually send the message in 1993.
>
> I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth.
Dammit, now you're making me feel old. (I was in college in
On 2 Oct 2008, at 18:08, Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before
eir birth.
Woo, we have a player younger than the game? Now Agora's really
grown up.
-zefram
I seem to recall ihope is 15, I don't know if e's older or younger
than
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>>I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth.
>
> Woo, we have a player younger than the game? Now Agora's really grown up.
"When I was your age, we didn't have fancy online nomics.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>>Well, I think it's pretty uncontroversially a date stamp,
>
> I controvert it. It was not stamped on the message, in the usual meaning
> of the term. It was not added as part of a regular process, nor in a
> mann
comex wrote:
>I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth.
Woo, we have a player younger than the game? Now Agora's really grown up.
-zefram
On 2 Oct 2008, at 18:01, comex wrote:
I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before
eir birth.
I asked ais523 about that, and probably if that kind of time-travel
did work,
it'd just be an email from a non-person.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not least because you, er, didn't actually send the message in 1993.
I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth.
--
hopefully
minor evil
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
>>Thorny part: the time of day is not part of the date
>
> It is if you're dealing with timezones. Our date stamps have resolution
> finer than one day; I see no contradiction here.
Agora has no time zones. Day
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Thorny part: the time of day is not part of the date
It is if you're dealing with timezones. Our date stamps have resolution
finer than one day; I see no contradiction here.
-zefram
ais523 wrote:
>Well, I think it's pretty uncontroversially a date stamp,
I controvert it. It was not stamped on the message, in the usual meaning
of the term. It was not added as part of a regular process, nor in a
manner that would be expected to normally give an accurate record of
the current
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 17:25 +0100, Zefram wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> >X-Date-Stamp header saying the same thing. That one's definitely a date
> >stamp!
>
> Saying it doesn't make it so.
>
Well, I think it's pretty uncontroversially a date stamp, albeit one
with the wrong date on. The scam itself fa
ais523 wrote:
>X-Date-Stamp header saying the same thing. That one's definitely a date
>stamp!
Saying it doesn't make it so.
-zefram
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 12:20 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 1993 at 8:04 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Happy birthday, Agora!
>
> There were no Ribbons in 1993, and in any case the relevant Tailor's
> report saying you've got no magenta ribbon has self-ratified, so even
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 17:19 +0100, Zefram wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> >Date: 30 June 1993 00:04:30 +1200
>
> It's a pity the Truthfulness rule is gone. This would have been a
> great CFJ.
>
Just in case people argue about which header is correct, there's an
X-Date-Stamp header saying the same thing
31 matches
Mail list logo
