On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
>
>> 2009/3/10 Ed Murphy :
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2402
>>
>> = Criminal Case 2402 =
>>
>> Taral violated R2234, a p
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> ,,ËÊuÇɯÇÆpnɾ ɹoÉ llÉÉ É sı sıɥÊ,, ÊuÇɯÇÊÉÊs ÇÉ¥Ê uo ÊuÇɯÇÆpnɾ ɹoÉ llÉÉ Ä±
>
> --
> ais523
Very cute! It's less confusing than the acceptable communication in
CFJ 1267, tho. -g.
ehird wrote:
> 2009/3/11 comex :
>> AGAINST, see Murphy's message.
>
> Where?
My letters do look an awful lot like yours (only mine are usually
right side up).
2009/3/11 comex :
> AGAINST, see Murphy's message.
Where?
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, named Report Accessibility, AI 1:
>
>
>
> Create a new rule of Power 1, named Reports, with the following text:
> {{{
> When a player i
2009/3/10 Sean Hunt :
> I submit the following proposal, named Report Accessibility, AI 1:
I strongly oppose; we have servicable archives of the list and thus
reports and I do not want to lose that.
2009/3/10 comex :
> For the love of god, did you actually read the arguments surrounding that
> case?
>
The arguments did not mention the relevant aspect clearly. I thought
it was a trivial case so didn't look too closely.
comex wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I intend, with the consent of the other partners, to amend the AFO by
>> replacing section 7 with this text:
> I object. >
NttPF, and it doesn't look like the AFO will be allowed to re-register
without this or some other simil
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:39 PM, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I intend, with the consent of the other partners, to amend the AFO by
>> replacing section 7 with this text:
> I object. >
Hit send too early, sorry.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I intend, with the consent of the other partners, to amend the AFO by
> replacing section 7 with this text:
I object. >
> 7. Once each week, any active player may randomly choose an active
> first-class player (any good-faith effort at uni
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> 2009/3/10 Ed Murphy :
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2402
>>
>> = Criminal Case 2402 =
>>
>> Taral violated R2234, a power-2 rule, by not awarding me points
>>
2009/3/10 Alex Smith :
> Gratuitous arguments: You just did.
Shall I make new CFJs or shall we go by the precedent of "ok, let's
answer what you meant to ask"?
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> CFJ: {I am obligated to post "moo" to a Public Forum}
>> CFJ: {I am obligated to post "ooɯ" to a Public Forum}
>
> Gratuitous arguments: You just did.
Gratuitous arguments: Fulfilling an obligation doesn't cause it to
cease to exist.
OR DOES
Goethe wrote:
> H. CotC, you may wish to enter all of the above conversation as a
> gratuitous argument.
For 2403? 2406? both? other (please specify)?
2009/3/10 Josiah Worcester :
> I register.
>
> If the AFO is on hold, the AFO comes off hold.
>
> - H. Agoran Spy pikhq
>
The AFO is no longer a player.
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> I register.
>
> If the AFO is on hold, the AFO comes off hold.
>
> - H. Agoran Spy pikhq
Back from deep cover, eh? Report in code I hope.
The AFO, as a player, has Ceased to Be.
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Sgeo wrote:
> I remember someone saying that if this went through, e'd NoV
> inactives.. What happened to that?
It would be almost impossible to convict them, as there's a reasonable
doubt about whether they read the ruleset and it's impossible to prove
a player di
17 matches
Mail list logo
