Peekee wrote:
I
register
as
a
*player*
.
Channeling Syllep
On Friday 03 August 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I also appeal CFJ 1714 on the same grounds.
You can't directly anymore; you have to support my intention to appeal it
(and so does Wooble).
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
comex wrote:
>request that the CotC perform linked assignments:
The two cases examine rather different aspects of Peekee's message.
I don't think there's much to gain from having the same judge do both.
You have a week to convince me to perform linked assignments.
-zefram
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>I'd think the wording of the statement to be evaluated would be taken
>to mean that it's stipulated that the foreign nomic allows it.
You certainly did not stipulate that the foreign nomic allows players
of Agora to act on Agora's behalf. If you had, in suitable terms,
then
On 8/3/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/3/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I appeal the ruling in CFJ 1714 on the grounds that the Judge
> > apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "if", the
> > concept of stipulating certain conditions, and perhaps fo
Quoting Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Peekee wrote:
I
register
as
a
PLAYER
.
Are you the same Peekee who was a player intermittently up to 2004?
-zefr
On 8/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >I intend to, with 2 supporters, initiate an appeal concerning Zefram's
> >ruling of CFJ 1714,
>
> Oh goody, first ever usage of the new dependent action rules. I hereby
> vote OBJECT.
I don't think that has any practical effect, does
On 8/3/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I appeal the ruling in CFJ 1714 on the grounds that the Judge
> apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "if", the
> concept of stipulating certain conditions, and perhaps formal logic in
> general. I suggest a ruling of REASSIGN
Peekee wrote:
> I
> register
> as
> a
> PLAYER
> .
Are you the same Peekee who was a player intermittently up to 2004?
-zefram
On 8/3/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I appeal the ruling in CFJ 1714 on the grounds that the Judge
> apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "if", the
> concept of stipulating certain conditions, and perhaps formal logic in
> general. I suggest a ruling of REASSIGN
On Friday 03 August 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I appeal the ruling in CFJ 1714 on the grounds that the Judge
> apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "if", the
> concept of stipulating certain conditions, and perhaps formal logic in
> general.
signature.asc
Description: This
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>I appeal the ruling in CFJ 1714
You can't appeal it on your own. You need 2 support.
>apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "if", the
>concept of stipulating certain conditions, and perhaps formal logic in
>general.
I understand these perfectly well. The
should learn to reply to list
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:27:22 +0100
From: Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DIS: proto: clarify Mother, May I?
To: Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This seems
On 8/2/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
> > On Friday 27 July 2007, Antonio Dolcetta wrote:
>
> >> I was wandering if anyone is interested in creating a faction.
> >> Since the faction rules have been introduced no one has made one, Is
> >> there any interest at all in play
Ed Murphy wrote:
>As "if not , then the rules do not specify whether CAN or
>CANNOT ".
OK. Here's my proto-addition to "clarify MMI":
{{{
Enact a power=2 rule with title "Grammar for Logic" and text
The following terms are defined for the discussion of logical
relationships betwee
15 matches
Mail list logo
