Tentative results so far:
Voting begins: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:53:04 -0700
Voting ends : Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:53:04 -0700
5668 D1 3.0 comex Even objecting and voting should be unam...
5669 O1 1.7 Murphy Opinion in both directions
5670 D1 2.0 Murphy But what is truth?
5671
As the PerlNomic Partnership's Caste was increased, its following
votes were valid (but will not affect overall results):
5651 AGAINST
5653 FOR
5656 FOR
comex wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I CFJ on the following two linked cases:
>> 1. The Speaker CAN assign prerogatives for August 2008.
>> 2. The Speaker CAN assign prerogatives for September 2008.
>
> I dare H. CotC Murphy to not assign th
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:14 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not directly. Case in point: if the AFO were obligated via a FINE to
>> destroy one of its notes, would every single member of its basis would
>> be individually
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, considering comex's threatened lands now belong to the AFO and
>> the CotC is a member of the AFO (and the CotC is also quite a few WRVs
>> short for eir own lands), I wouldn't count on it.
>
> I believe I have 5 ranches
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, comex wrote:
> By the way, I think it's debatable whether there is even an inequity:
> everyone in the AAA has an equal chance to harvest the CFJs that I
> created.
That doesn't matter, to find inequity you need some party (to call the
case) and a judge to agree that there ex
Wooble wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In this case, I would suggest that the CotC politely take (nearly) the
>> maximum allowed time to assign ID numbers to those CFJs (or, if e considers
>> that not entertaining enough, take bribes to do it in
Wooble wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's been over a week since all the other CFJs were created.
>
> s/created/assigned ID numbers/
>
> The CotC is behind; calling more CFJs may or may not be likely to get
> em to start assigning numbers. Either w
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:14 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not directly. Case in point: if the AFO were obligated via a FINE to
> destroy one of its notes, would every single member of its basis would
> be individually obligated to also destroy one of eir notes?
Ah, you're quite right. E
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/8/5 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Evidence: In the game in question, I have fatally died, meaning it is
>> now impossible for me to ascend. Therefore, I would be GUILTY, if this
>> were a criminal case rather than an equ
2008/8/5 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Evidence: In the game in question, I have fatally died, meaning it is
> now impossible for me to ascend. Therefore, I would be GUILTY, if this
> were a criminal case rather than an equity case.
As opposed to non-fatal death?
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:13 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Rule 1742 says: "Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with
>> that contract." There is no language to the effect that non-parties
>> to a contract shall
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this case, I would suggest that the CotC politely take (nearly) the
> maximum allowed time to assign ID numbers to those CFJs (or, if e considers
> that not entertaining enough, take bribes to do it in time.)
Well, consi
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:16, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's been over a week since all the other CFJs were created.
>
> s/created/assigned ID numbers/
>
> The CotC is behind; calling more CFJs may or may not be
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:13 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rule 1742 says: "Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with
> that contract." There is no language to the effect that non-parties
> to a contract shall act in accordance with a contract. Therefore,
> although the AFO's R1
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:13 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rule 1742 says: "Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with
> that contract." There is no language to the effect that non-parties
> to a contract shall act in accordance with a contract. Therefore,
> although the AFO's R17
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's been over a week since all the other CFJs were created.
s/created/assigned ID numbers/
The CotC is behind; calling more CFJs may or may not be likely to get
em to start assigning numbers. Either way, it should be motivation
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I call for judgment on the following statement: "The devolution of the
> AFO's obligations onto comex means that the AFO is in breach of the
> AAA agreement if comex calls CFJs for the clear purpose of allowing
> the CFJ t
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:42 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I CFJ on the following statements:
>> - I need more Water Rights Vouchers!
>> - I need more Water Rights Vouchers!
>> - I need more Water Rights Vouchers!
>> - I n
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:42 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the following statements:
> - I need more Water Rights Vouchers!
> - I need more Water Rights Vouchers!
> - I need more Water Rights Vouchers!
> - I need more Water Rights Vouchers!
> - I need more Water Rights Vouchers!
W
20 matches
Mail list logo
