there was not, it is done.
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <thoughtsoflifeandlight17@
>> 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
>>>
>>
>
