On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 07:17, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> X crops - 135 chits (no previous rate)
>>
>> This should probably b
Gratuituous counter-arguments:
comex wrote:
> If whether judging FALSE is illegal is UNDECIDABLE, then nobody can be
> prosecuted for judging FALSE. Therefore, I recommend OVERRULE with a
> replacement judgement of FALSE.
>
> If UNDECIDABLE is the only appropriate judgement, then FALSE is not a
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 07:17, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> X crops - 135 chits (no previous rate)
>
> This should probably be higher
What would you suggest?
- woggle
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> X crops - 135 chits (no previous rate)
This should probably be higher
4 matches
Mail list logo