Where was there an objection to the second intent?
-Aris
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 6:22 PM Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You do not - there was an objection
>
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 17:58 Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:51 AM Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 22:41 +0000, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> >> Grr. My fault. Will anyone mind if I ratify this away? Only way I can
>>> think
>>> >> of fixing it, so I'm going to try. I intend, without objection, to
>>> ratify
>>> >> the following document: {{The proposal that would otherwise have the
>>> ID
>>> >> number 7958 instead has the ID number 7864.}}
>>> >
>>> > I object, not because I disagree with the principle, but because of the
>>> > time paradox. Identify the proposal via some means other than number
>>> > (e.g. via its title and submission date).
>>>
>>> I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document: {{The
>>> proposal entitled "Assets v7" by Aris has ID number 7864.}}
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>> I do so.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>
