Goethe wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, comex wrote:
Between when their voting periods begin and end, cast, and do
not retract before the voting period ends, a ballot FOR the
proposal God-emperor I, INSTEAD OF casting and not retracting
a ballot FOR the proposal God-empero
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, comex wrote:
>> > Between when their voting periods begin and end, cast, and do
>> > not retract before the voting period ends, a ballot FOR the
>> > proposal God-emperor I, INSTEAD OF casting and not retracting
>> > a ballot FOR the proposal God-emperor II.
> I opine
I am willing to trade a 4 crop for a 1, 3, 5 or 9. E-mail me if interested.
Also, just out of curiosity, if you are working on my Engima puzzle, just
e-mail and let me know your progress. I spent a little while working on
exactly what I wanted to do, so I'm curious whether I was too smart for my
o
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It can't, but go back and read what I wrote earlier; there is another
> > interpretation of transference that you haven't addressed.
>
> I don't see t
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and some non-contestants
> will presumably vote AGAINST both.
>
Hi.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:36 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assuming you're referring to what I quoted... I don't think being
> "transferred to a state of being owned by" and entity is a reasonable
> interpretation of an asset being "transferred to" it. The latter (as
> evidenced by its wo
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It can't, but go back and read what I wrote earlier; there is another
> interpretation of transference that you haven't addressed.
I don't see the distinction. You seem to be arguing that "being in
the ownership of " and "bei
On 3/17/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the majority consent of the farmers I propose the following
> change to the AAA agreement:
> {
> In section 16 replace:
> {{
> A farmer who owns fewer lands
> }}
> with:
> {{
> Once each week, a farmer who at the beginning of that
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> Is it reasonable to interpret assets as being transferred from a
> >> >> state of being unowned to a state of being owned by ?
> It can't, but go back and read what I wrote earlier; there is another
> interpretation
Eris wrote:
> Sorry, I'd look it up but I'm at work. What does 2156 look like after
> this change?
>
> On 3/16/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proposal: VLOD decay
>> (AI = 2, please)
>>
>> Amend Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) by inserting this
>> text immediately after
root wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>
>> > On 3/17/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Is it reasonable to interpret assets as being transferred from a
>> >> state of being unowned to a state of being owned by ?
>> >
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:58 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17/03/2008, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I create a Digit Ranch (land #17) with a Seed of 0 in the possession
> > of Ivan Hope.
>
> Do I also get the water rights voucher, or do we have a long-standing
> rivalry?
On 17/03/2008, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I create a Digit Ranch (land #17) with a Seed of 0 in the possession
> of Ivan Hope.
Do I also get the water rights voucher, or do we have a long-standing
rivalry? :-)
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On 3/17/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also request subsidization.
Hm! If I transfer it away, and ask again? :)
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/17/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Eris 4 2
>
> COE: I should have 6 crops.
>
> --
> Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can gi
Hey you missed me. I took it to the proper forum in a different thread.
Just in case... I request subsidization
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:22
Sorry, I'd look it up but I'm at work. What does 2156 look like after
this change?
On 3/16/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal: VLOD decay
> (AI = 2, please)
>
> Amend Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) by inserting this
> text immediately after "eir EVLOD is set to eir V
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/17/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Federal Subsidy: 2
>
> I request subsidization.
>
> --
> Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
>-- Unknown
>
Same
On 3/17/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eris 4 2
COE: I should have 6 crops.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> comex wrote:
>
> > On 3/17/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Is it reasonable to interpret assets as being transferred from a
> >> state of being unowned to a state of being owned by ?
> >
> > Yes, but it is
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You'll know what you're looking for when you find it. There might be
> > other words in the grid that aren't related to the thirteen words. I
> > used a random letter generator to fill in the rest of the array. For
> > e
comex wrote:
> On 3/17/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is it reasonable to interpret assets as being transferred from a
>> state of being unowned to a state of being owned by ?
>
> Yes, but it is unreasonable to interpret objects as being transferred
> from the ownership of to the ow
On 3/17/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it reasonable to interpret assets as being transferred from a
> state of being unowned to a state of being owned by ?
Yes, but it is unreasonable to interpret objects as being transferred
from the ownership of to the ownership of .
root wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> a) "gained by" does not apply; "gain" is explicitly defined (by the
>> fourth paragraph of Rule 2166) as applying only to newly created
>> assets. "transferred to" is ambiguous; it is not explicitly
> You'll know what you're looking for when you find it. There might be
> other words in the grid that aren't related to the thirteen words. I
> used a random letter generator to fill in the rest of the array. For
> exmple, there's the word "COW" in the top row. That's just a fluke.
In fact, th
25 matches
Mail list logo
