On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2097
>>
>> == CFJ 2097 ==
>>
>>T
On Saturday 19 July 2008 09:20:41 pm comex wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal in reference to
> > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/suspects.php:
> >
> > Department of Corrections
> > AI: 1
> > II: 1
> > {
> > Upon t
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal in reference to
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/suspects.php:
>
> Department of Corrections
> AI: 1
> II: 1
> {
> Upon the adoption of this proposal comex is awarded the patent title
> "Hab
Taral wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2019 was never a CFJ, since it wasn't initiated by a first-class person.
>
> So how is there an appeal of it?
No one realized "oh, wait, the prior case was ineffective" until after
the appeal was allege
Zefram wrote:
> Taral wrote:
>> You have a specific objection?
>
> Nothing fundamental. I just want to see more of where the current
> easy-prosecution system leads, as we gain experience in using it.
> Restricting the flow of such experience doesn't seem like a good idea
> right now. I could w
Taral wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2019a
>>
>> Appeal 2019a
>
> I can't find this on zenith.
I deleted 2019 and 2019a, on the
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2019 was never a CFJ, since it wasn't initiated by a first-class person.
So how is there an appeal of it?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Taral wrote:
>You have a specific objection?
Nothing fundamental. I just want to see more of where the current
easy-prosecution system leads, as we gain experience in using it.
Restricting the flow of such experience doesn't seem like a good idea
right now. I could well be in favour of an identi
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2019a
>>
>> Appeal 2019a
>
> I can't fin
2008/7/19 Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Aren't you a player yet? How long has it been?
Almost 30 days.
But I wanna get rid of that contract first.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 5:56 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>5650 O1 1.7 Pavitra No frivolous prosecution
> AGAINST*11
You have a specific objection?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If some way for me to become a player is provided (hint hint),
> you can say goodbye to the Demon proposals.
Aren't you a player yet? How long has it been?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any f
2008/7/19 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I support, and would be willing to negotiate bribing against objection.
>
As would I.
Er, as would ais523 on my behalf.
If some way for me to become a player is provided (hint hint),
you can say goodbye to the Demon proposals.
tusho
2008/7/19 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> tusho wrote:
>
>> 2008/7/19 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> ehrid (aka Teh Cltohed Mna ...)
>>
>> CoE: No longer.
>
> Please explain this more clearly.
>
>
Someone deregistered ehrid, sometime. :p
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:37 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, by the way, I change my nickname to avpx. This being an
> unregulated action, it succeeds.
Noted. :-P
-root
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5649 O1 1.7 Quazie Partnerships devolve, and so should unqu...
> AGAINST x 17 (should explicitly lift the first-class restriction for
> initiating)
I'll fix that then. Also, is the word basis or feet appropriate for
Proto-Proposal: Namespace conflicts
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 1586 (Definition and Continuity of Entities) by replacing
this text:
Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same name or nickname.
with this text:
If multiple rules attempt to define an entity with the same
na
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 7. Metabankers can cease to be Metabankers with the consent of the
> holders of a majority of FPB.
I find this to be an astonishingly concise way of stating what I
originally wanted to state in the Bank of Agora but decid
tusho wrote:
> 2008/7/19 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> ehrid (aka Teh Cltohed Mna ...)
>
> CoE: No longer.
Please explain this more clearly.
> 5649 O1 1.7 Quazie Partnerships devolve, and so should unqu...
AGAINST * 8
> 5650 O1 1.7 Pavitra No frivolous prosecution
FOR * 8
--Wooble
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2089
>
> == CFJ 2089 ==
>
>The PerlNomic Partnership transferred 150 chits to woggle as a
>result of th
22 matches
Mail list logo
