On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding 1903, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM with the
> following concurring opinion:
>
> Goethe's original judgement of CFJ 1903 alludes to the following
> interpretation:
>
>Questions are not statements.
Ivan Hope wrote:
> On 15/03/2008, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Someone should write up an amendment to the effect of "if the spot
>> refers to a recurring type of time period, then each instance of that
>> type of time period is evaluated separately for violations".
>
> "Every millis
On 15/03/2008, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone should write up an amendment to the effect of "if the spot
> refers to a recurring type of time period, then each instance of that
> type of time period is evaluated separately for violations".
"Every millisecond, post a message to a
root wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:14 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On 15/03/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
>> >
>> > If someone Opined
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:14 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 15/03/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
> >
> > If someone Opined NO WAY on this, how
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:14 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15/03/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
>
> If someone Opined NO WAY on this, how would they Break it?
By initiating a judicial case?
-root
On 15/03/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
If someone Opined NO WAY on this, how would they Break it?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> In the interest of preserving the intent of the rule (and I should
> know, I wrote it),
I have no opinion on the rest of the CFJ, but I have to call you out
here: you wrote it with one intent, but voters read it and may have
voted it in with another/misun
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding 1903, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM with the
> following concurring opinion:
>
> Goethe's original judgement of CFJ 1903 alludes to the following
> interpretation:
>
>Questions are not statements
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the interest of preserving the intent of the rule (and I should
> know, I wrote it), I interpret that 3) does apply, and does take
> precedence over 1) and 2). Accordingly, I judge TRUE.
One final point. This judgement
10 matches
Mail list logo
