On Tue, 20 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
>> I call for judgement on the following statement: "In the quoted message,
>> ehird
>> sent an infinite number of messages."
>
> Gratuitous counterargument:
>
> X sends a message (actually), so Y sends the same message (legally),
> so X se
ais523 wrote:
> I call for judgement on the following statement: "In the quoted message, ehird
> sent an infinite number of messages."
Gratuitous counterargument:
X sends a message (actually), so Y sends the same message (legally),
so X sends the same message... but e already actually does so, s
Ivan Hope wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If I am ehird, I initiate a criminal CFJ against Ivan Hope CXXVII, alledging
>> that e violated Rule 2173 by revealing the text of that private contract.
>
> My defense: Rule 101 protects my right to
nttPF. Also, do you want to end the pre-trial phase immediately?
--
ais523
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of ihope
Sent: Tue 20/05/2008 22:52
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Hay guyz
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMA
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I am ehird, I initiate a criminal CFJ against Ivan Hope CXXVII, alledging
> that e violated Rule 2173 by revealing the text of that private contract.
My defense: Rule 101 protects my right to reveal that stuff.
--Ivan H
ehird wrote:
> 2008/5/20 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > This is a public contract. Whenever either Ivan Hope CXXVII or ehird sends
> > a public message, the other automatically sends that same message. Any
> > party to this contract may change this contract by announcement.
> >
On 5/20/08, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I judge as follows in CFJ 1935:
> {{{
> Unfortunately, comex's gratuitous arguments appear to be correct. This is a
> blatant scam, but I can't see how it violates the rules.
>
> I judge OVERLOOKED.
> }}}
>
> I intend, with 2 support,
On 5/20/08, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would also like to remind comex that e discussed many of eir scams in the
> open in a publically logged channel, so e doesn't seem to care much about the
> security of eir scams, and that this scam works just as well despite being
> reve
comex wrote:
> Um, um, revealing what I told you in confidence? Well, that's
> terrible!
Normally, I would take things in confidence. However:
1) The scam doesn't actually work anyway
2) The scam relies on other people knowing what it is to work, and you already
have your emergency session
3) Yo
On 5/20/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> > The scam requires 3 senators, who call an emergency session, then
> > filibuster every proposal just before its voting period ends, so that
> > there is no time for anyone else to unfilibuster it.
On Tue, 20 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> The scam requires 3 senators, who call an emergency session, then
> filibuster every proposal just before its voting period ends, so that
> there is no time for anyone else to unfilibuster it.
R2168 ensures there's plenty of time to unfilibuster an
11 matches
Mail list logo
