On Feb 26, 2007, at 4:17 AM, Zefram wrote:
The Pineapple Partnership hereby registers as a player.
The Pineapple Partnership hereby calls for judgement on the statement
"the Pineapple Partnership is a person". Caller's arguments: the
Ruleset does not explicitly define "person", but R754(3)
Maud wrote:
Your binding agreement fails to satisfy the ``business'' requirement
as well as the ``view of profit'' requirement, so it isn't a
partnership.
Obviously, we haven't shared the confidential aspects of the
partnership's business arrangements.
I can reveal part of it: 2. ???
No,
CFJ 1613 DISMISSED
My first feeling was to deem it true, and include that it would be
easy and acceptable for anyone to un-deem Zefram as a pineapple. Then
I thought that it should be false because Zefram did not grow on a
tree- which brings me to DISMISSED because it's irrelevant to the
rules.
On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:44 AM, Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I DISMISS CFJ 1614. The status of Zefram being an avocado -- indeed,
of any player being any type of foodstuff -- is not relevant to the
Rules.
This judgement is a judicial admission that personhood is not
restricted to memb
On 2/26/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Pineapple Partnership hereby registers as a player.
Oh, beautiful!
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 2/26/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Map is part of Agoran law, and clearly not part of either Australian
Why are you dragging Australia into this? We've had players from
Germany before, but I don't think we've had any Australians. (But I'm
sure somebody will correct me if I'm wr
Michael Slone wrote:
>If Austrian law does not apply to Agora, then how do you explain the Map?
The Map is part of Agoran law, and clearly not part of either Australian
or Austrian law. The Map does not purport to incorporate any outside
source of law into Agora. What connection are you trying t
On 2/26/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's only the Australian law on the matter. Not applicable here.
If Austrian law does not apply to Agora, then how do you explain the Map?
--
Michael Slone
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>I DISMISS CFJ 1614. The status of Zefram being an avocado -- indeed,
>of any player being any type of foodstuff -- is not relevant to the
>Rules.
This judgement is a judicial admission that personhood is not
restricted to members of Homo sapiens, but extends at least
Michael Slone wrote:
>According to the Partnership Act 1958, Pt 2 Div. 1 s. 5 (1):
That's only the Australian law on the matter. Not applicable here.
Many legal jurisdictions have their own set of regulations about
partnerships. (E.g., here in the UK partnerships cannot have more than
20 partner
On 2/26/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The agreement creating the Pineapple Partnership contains all the
legal elements to construct a partnership. Principally, it is an
entity distinct from the partners, obligations on the Partnership
become obligations on the partners, and this is all l
Michael Slone wrote:
>Where is your argument for the claim that the Pineapple
>Partnership is actually a partnership?
The agreement creating the Pineapple Partnership contains all the
legal elements to construct a partnership. Principally, it is an
entity distinct from the partners, obligations o
On 2/26/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Pineapple Partnership hereby calls for judgement on the statement
"the Pineapple Partnership is a person". Caller's arguments: the
Ruleset does not explicitly define "person", but R754(3) refers to
the legal definition. In law a "person" is anyt
13 matches
Mail list logo
