comex wrote:
>1. If the "196-algorithm" (see
>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/196-Algorithm.html ) terminates when
>applied to the number 196, the AFO CAN cause comex to take game
>actions by announcement.
This fails the reasonableness requirement because it's infeasible to
determine whether the cond
On 6/3/08, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, I don't agree with Judge Pavrita's quantum theory from eir
> judgement of CFJ 1936.
Correction: the aforementioned "quantum theory" is from eir judgement
of CFJs 1975-6. My other reference to CFJ 1936 was correct.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 2 June 2008 10:05:23 Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Ivan Hope wrote:
>>
>> > Implicit consent is not explicit consent. I judge the same thing as
>> > before, which is TRUE.
>>
>> Rule 1742 does not require explicit consent. I
On Monday 2 June 2008 10:05:23 Ed Murphy wrote:
> Ivan Hope wrote:
>
> > Implicit consent is not explicit consent. I judge the same thing as
> > before, which is TRUE.
>
> Rule 1742 does not require explicit consent. I intend (with 2 support)
> to appeal this case, and I recommend that the panel
4 matches
Mail list logo
