On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:58 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I believe precedent is that if a disclaimer implies that something may
>>> not actually be true, it's not an announcement.
>>
>> If so, we need to calculate a whole lot o
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> You wrote earlier that you thought the privilege grant probably worked...
I looked at the Rules more carefully since then.
> There's nothing that says privileges can't grant ability in general.
There's nothing that says they can.
-G.
tusho wrote:
> On 29/09/2008, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I transfer a prop from myself to tusho for attempting to build a
>> spinner control for the Assessor's vote entry form. (I couldn't
>> figure out how to adapt it to multiple controls per page, so ended
>> up adapting a differen
On 29/09/2008, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I transfer a prop from myself to tusho for attempting to build a
> spinner control for the Assessor's vote entry form. (I couldn't
> figure out how to adapt it to multiple controls per page, so ended
> up adapting a different example. But the
On 28 Sep 2008, at 23:46, Ed Murphy wrote:
No, you don't.
Indeed! I was ... er... seeing if you'd pick up on that!
tusho wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2008, at 22:29, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> Ivan Hope, tusho, I inform you of equity case 2119 and invite you to
>> submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.
>>
>> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2119
> I end the pre-trial phase on this
On 28 Sep 2008, at 23:22, comex wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Referencing Goethe's most recent thoughts, I recommend a very long
CHOKEY
for me.
Y'know, I recommend EXILE.
Good to know.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Referencing Goethe's most recent thoughts, I recommend a very long CHOKEY
> for me.
Y'know, I recommend EXILE.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> == CFJ 2182 ==
>
>The message sent by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" on "Sat, 20
>Sep 2008 22:21:09 -0500" (see evidence 1) was successful in
>initiating a CFJ.
>
> ===
On 28 Sep 2008, at 22:57, Ed Murphy wrote:
[Disclaimer: HRC is still used as a placeholder for now, though tusho
has pretty much admitted to being the sole party behind
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I absolutely have not.
On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 17:51 -0400, ihope wrote:
> I hereby submit an argument regarding the equitability of the
> situation.
ISIDTID...
--
ais523
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope, tusho, I inform you of equity case 2119 and invite you to
> submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.
>
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2119
I hereby submit an argument regar
On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 14:41 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> == CFJ 2171 ==
>
> If a person who is bound by an equity agreement fails to fulfill
> eir obligations to the agreement, and the judge attempts to act
> on eir behalf, but the
On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 14:16 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > Owning any positive number of Rests is a Losing Condition. A person who
> > owns no rests is called "musical".
>
> "A person is musical if and only if e owns no rests. Failing to be
> musical is a Losing Condition." Simil
ais523 wrote:
> Owning any positive number of Rests is a Losing Condition. A person who
> owns no rests is called "musical".
"A person is musical if and only if e owns no rests. Failing to be
musical is a Losing Condition." Similarly for flat, out-of-tune, etc..
> While a person owns at least
Again, this is just a proto, not a proposal of any sort. Differences
from the previous version are marked with comments after them. In a
reverse of normal email conventions, the comments are marked with a
leading > character on each line.
Proposal: Rests (AI=2, II=1)
Create a power-2 rule cal
Pavitra wrote:
>> 5711 O 1 1.7 Murphy Community service
> endorse Murphy. It's not clear whether "as soon as possible" here
> means ASAP after the judgment is assigned, or ASAP after it goes into
> effect.
Those happen simultaneously. For judgements with tariffs (CHOKEY and
EXILE)
ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 16:29 -0500, Ben Caplan wrote:
>> On Thursday 25 September 2008 01:03:46 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> 1. I do 1.
>>> 2. I do 2.
>>> 3. If 2 failed, I didn't do 1.
>>>
>>> It's very arguable if #3 actually, legally works. The
>>> "simultaneous but sequential"
On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 12:28 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> tusho wrote:
>
> > On 24 Sep 2008, at 14:07, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Fails. The Promotor is only required to distribute proposals that
> >>> have been i
tusho wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2008, at 14:07, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> Fails. The Promotor is only required to distribute proposals that
>>> have been in the pool since the beginning of the week.
>> The Monster doesn't h
On Sep 28, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(OscarMeyr to Kelly, IIRC: "It was created via a scam, it should
only
be repealed via a scam.")
How'd you get your hands on that message? (/me scratches head,
goe
On Sep 28, 2008, at 2:41 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Honorificabilitudinitatibus
ais523 wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-09-27 at 18:05 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> ais523 wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, this might be where it breaks down in Agora. The point is that as I
>>> haven't reached my CFJ limit yet, there's no way that the attempt to
>>> call a CFJ can fail, except for some other part of the tr
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Honorificabilitudinitatibus
>>
>> The others are fine, but this is Latin. C
Wooble wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:58 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I believe precedent is that if a disclaimer implies that something may
>> not actually be true, it's not an announcement.
>
> If so, we need to calculate a whole lot of gamestate. "I vote 5* FOR.
> Disclaimer:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Honorificabilitudinitatibus
>
> The others are fine, but this is Latin. Comes from Shakespeare.
According to reference.com, it's listed in the OED, a
OscarMeyr wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2008, at 10:07 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> tusho wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/09/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Proposal: switch off the fountain (AI=3)
>>> How dare you!
>> Do you smell paint?
>>
>> (OscarMeyr to Kelly, I
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. I don't think an unnamed possible privilege in a foreign nomic counts
> as the *rules defining* a person as possessing a *specific* privilege as
> required to be a R101 privilege. The specificity of R101 as requiring
>
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Honorificabilitudinitatibus
The others are fine, but this is Latin. Comes from Shakespeare.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Sat, 2008-09-27 at 18:05 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > Ah, this might be where it breaks down in Agora. The point is that as I
> > haven't reached my CFJ limit yet, there's no way that the attempt to
> > call a CFJ can fail, except for some other part of the transaction
> > fail
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:58 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I believe precedent is that if a disclaimer implies that something may
>> not actually be true, it's not an announcement.
>
> If so, we need to calcula
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:58 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe precedent is that if a disclaimer implies that something may
> not actually be true, it's not an announcement.
If so, we need to calculate a whole lot of gamestate. "I vote 5* FOR.
Disclaimer: this might not work, I'm
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Well, the power grant doesn't seem to work, but the scam doesn't
> entirely rely on it. The privilege grant alone should be enough for
> this scam to have worked; per R101, "a person's defined privileges are
> assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit,
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (OscarMeyr to Kelly, IIRC: "It was created via a scam, it should only
>> be repealed via a scam.")
>
>
> How'd you get your hands on that message? (/me scratches head, goes through
> a long-since purged SENT folder.)
On Sunday 28 September 2008 08:40:45 am ihope wrote:
> Rule 36 states that Rule 4E83 is a synonym for Rule 83. Since we
> don't have a Rule 83, we're still safe.
I'm pretty sure Rule 36 states that It Could Always Be Worse.
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Rules_Of_The_Internet
(Not Safe
On Sep 24, 2008, at 11:14 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 16:17, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sep 24, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I think I have this right:
Almost. PF.
I mill 8 * 5 = 7.
I mill 8 - 8 = 0.
The RBoA would've happily exc
On Sep 27, 2008, at 10:07 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
tusho wrote:
On 28/09/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Proposal: switch off the fountain (AI=3)
How dare you!
Do you smell paint?
(OscarMeyr to Kelly, IIRC: "It was created via a scam, it should only
b
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:27 AM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 27 September 2008 06:20:41 pm comex wrote:
>> We have no Rule
>> 400
>>0, so I think we're safe.
>
> Interesting. I read "4E83" to mea
38 matches
Mail list logo
