On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > I judge FALSE.
> >
> > BobTHJ
>
> Oh can you stop with the craptastic repeat? This has been done.
>
It has? my apologies.
Can my judgment even be considered valid anywa
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please note, I do believe the new Dependent Action rules allow one to say
> (er, go back to saying) "Having received the necessary support, I do X"
> without listing out supporters. At least, that was the intent :).
The
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:45 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Read the rules, become a player, have fun, I suppose. The rules are at
> http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/current_slr.txt
Not the SLR! Try the FLR, it's tastier.
http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/current_flr.txt
Pavitra wrote:
> On Sunday 24 February 2008 3:35 Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Narrowly rejected: Pavitra(5448)
>
> This line is, I think, misleading; as the table correctly shows, I have
> neither Ab nor A note gains pending.
These are events on which Note gains are based. In the case of
proposals,
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This issue can no longer be avoided; no players other than BobTHJ
> > are standing.
> >
> >
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcas
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> On 16:27 Tue 26 Feb , Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I judge FALSE.
>>
>> I intend to appeal this with two support. It contradicts without
>> argument the precedents set down in CF
- Forwarded message from Robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:48:59 -0500
From: Robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Nomic: Acknowedgement of Recognition
Dear Mr. Ambassador:
As the officially-elected Diplomat of Nomicide, I hereby inform you
that we
On 26/02/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I judge FALSE.
>
> I intend to appeal this with two support. It contradicts without
> argument the precedents set down in CFJs 1895 and 1899.
I support this.
--Iv
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgment.
I support this, with the recommendation for reassign (which converges
to the same result in practice if not in the database).
-goethe
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgment.
NttPF.
-root
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I move to REMAND with these arguments.
The prior judge has since gone on hold. I suggest that REASSIGN would
be better in this case.
-root
On Sunday 24 February 2008 3:35 Ed Murphy wrote:
> Narrowly rejected: Pavitra(5448)
This line is, I think, misleading; as the table correctly shows, I have
neither Ab nor A note gains pending.
watcher
On Monday 25 February 2008 17:34 comex wrote:
> [T]he judgement was based on R2019 saying
> "by announcement", but in fact that phrase was only added after the
> CFJ was called.
I move to REMAND with these arguments.
watcher
On 26/02/2008, Ankica Zilic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what to do
Read the rules, become a player, have fun, I suppose. The rules are at
http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/current_slr.txt
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
what to do
ihope wrote:
>Ah. Perhaps it would be better to OVERRULE with IRRELEVANT, then, as
>the description of IRRELEVANT is that the veracity as it was then is
>not relevant now.
We've never applied such grounds for irrelevance before, and it seems
unAgoran to do so. In any case, it's relevant because i
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:59 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah. Perhaps it would be better to OVERRULE with IRRELEVANT, then, as
> the description of IRRELEVANT is that the veracity as it was then is
> not relevant now.
It's relevant to knowing whether the alleged assignment of
prerogat
On 25/02/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you didn't know this, judgements of FALSE, TRUE, UNDECIDABLE, and
> IRRELEVANT all include "at the time the inquiry case was initiated" in
> their R591 wording. (No offense, just in case you were unaware.)
Ah. Perhaps it would be better to O
18 matches
Mail list logo
