Pavitra wrote:
>> 6056 D 1 2.0 Taral NoV acceptance
> FOR, though it still should be more pragmatic
>> 6057 D 0 2.0 Taral NoV fixup
> FOR
>> 6058 D 1 2.0 Wooble NoV ID
> FOR
NttPF
> 6056 D 1 2.0 Taral NoV acceptance
FOR, though it still should be more pragmatic
> 6057 D 0 2.0 Taral NoV fixup
FOR
> 6058 D 1 2.0 Wooble NoV ID
FOR
Pavitra
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Jan 15, 2009, at 6:30 PM, comex wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Ed Murphy
wrote:
Judge: OscarMeyr
"ehird SHALL deregister".
Tempting, but a bit much for an equity case.
I put forth this draft ruling: {ehird shall publish the required
repor
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Judge: OscarMeyr
"ehird SHALL deregister".
Wooble wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/notes.php (now includes rank)
>
> I think this is showing every case as disinterested at the moment,
> unless I'm reading it wrong. Of course, I'm still doing all the
> conducting manually at
Wooble wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I contest this. The office of Historian was repealed by Proposal 6018
>> on December 22.
>
> Does the fact that the portion of the IADoP's report listing you as
> holding the office the last time I published it mean the office
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 08:38 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> == CFJ 2260 ==
>>>
>>>If the purported backing document for Annoyances as specified in
>>>th
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 08:38 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > == CFJ 2260 ==
> >
> >If the purported backing document for Annoyances as specified in
> >the message purporting to define them existed
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/notes.php (now includes rank)
I think this is showing every case as disinterested at the moment,
unless I'm reading it wrong. Of course, I'm still doing all the
conducting manually at the moment anyway.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I contest this. The office of Historian was repealed by Proposal 6018
> on December 22.
Does the fact that the portion of the IADoP's report listing you as
holding the office the last time I published it mean the office still
exists? Either wa
10 matches
Mail list logo