On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Warrigal wrote:
> I change my nickname to Thomas O'Malley.
See, this is what happens when you do things at 2:44 in the morning. I
forgot two thirds of it.
I change my nickname to Abraham de Lacey Giuseppe Casey Thomas
O'Malley, abbreviated Thomas O'Malley, abbrev
I change my nickname to Thomas O'Malley.
--Warrigal
On Mar 30, 2009, at 5:44 PM, comex wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ed Murphy
wrote:
I object.
You mean "I am object", right?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
I object.
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> As it wasn't clear from the context, the following is/was my justice's
>> opinion
>> on Appeal 2402b:
>>
>>> Taral became Guilty in a "standard" manner for lateness at the end of
>>> March 7, at which time AAA was unarguably a contest. T
Goethe wrote:
> As it wasn't clear from the context, the following is/was my justice's
> opinion
> on Appeal 2402b:
>
>> Taral became Guilty in a "standard" manner for lateness at the end of
>> March 7, at which time AAA was unarguably a contest. The fact that Taral
>> tried (in a standard man
Agora can join B now. It just needs to post to spoon-business that it has
decided to become a faction.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Warrigal
> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
> > We should so join this, right?
>
> I imagine it would be similar if Agora an
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> (I wonder what effect this has on the ruleset ratification argument?
> It's only a historical accident that the Agoran rule was repealed
> separately; without a ruleset ratification, we could therefore have been
> wrong about the Agoran ruleset for ages due
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Taral wrote:
>> Did I miss something or do these arguments make no sense in a 1742
>> case against comex?
And finally, the hypocrisy of partnerships is revealed here. Proponents
claim that partnerships can't have intents, but
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Taral wrote:
> Did I miss something or do these arguments make no sense in a 1742
> case against comex?
I only violated the contract if the PNP violated Rule 2215 by stating
that the proposal pool was empty. (For the record, I forgot about
that statement, though
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> = Criminal Case 2435 =
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> I suggest that the judge of that case apply the standard punishment, but
> (per rule 2145) apply it to comex, rather than to the partnership as a
11 matches
Mail list logo
