Sean Hunt wrote:
> Sadly, CFJs have no bearing on reality.
Strictly speaking, while this is mostly true, one of R217's possible
factors in interpreting rules is "past judgements". If the rule was
genuinely ambiguous before, the CFJ may be a valid way of disambiguating.
signature.asc
Description
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
You can't publish NoVs with support.
-coppro
>>> Yes you can...
>> Where have you been? Dependent actions are broken.
>
> The CFJ saying they work han't been overturned yet. In any case, e
> can still i
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> You can't publish NoVs with support.
>>>
>>> -coppro
>>>
>>
>> Yes you can...
>
> Where have you been? Dependent actions are broken.
The CFJ saying they work han't been overturned yet. In any case, e
can still intend and gather support, altho
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> comex wrote:
I publish the following NoV: BobTHJ violated R2143 (Power-1) by
failing to complete the Anarchist's weekly duties in the week of
August 10-1
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>> I publish the following NoV: BobTHJ violated R2143 (Power-1) by
>>> failing to complete the Anarchist's weekly duties in the week of
>>> August 10-16.
>>> I intend, with support, to publish the following N
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> I publish the following NoV: BobTHJ violated R2143 (Power-1) by
>> failing to complete the Anarchist's weekly duties in the week of
>> August 10-16.
>> I intend, with support, to publish the following NoV: BobTHJ violated
>> R2143
comex wrote:
> I publish the following NoV: BobTHJ violated R2143 (Power-1) by
> failing to complete the Anarchist's weekly duties in the week of
> August 10-16.
> I intend, with support, to publish the following NoV: BobTHJ violated
> R2143 (Power-1) by failing to complete the Anarchist's weekly d
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 13:22, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I play Committee to make FIXME undistributable.
>
> I give notice that I intend to audit BobTHJ. This proposal would
> remove the loophole e created that will trivially allow someone to
>
2009/8/30 Geoffrey Spear :
> I give notice that I intend to audit BobTHJ. This proposal would
> remove the loophole e created that will trivially allow someone to
> create 24 Rests in eir possession and deregister em, and if e wants to
> block it's distribution I'll be happy to demonstrate.
ouch
2009/8/29 Geoffrey Spear :
> I intend to audit the IBA.
Sure thing, Ron Paul.
On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 02:53 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
> That is, "I object to all dependent actions" is at the recordkeepors'
> discretion, because one can only be certain that one has fully
> "unpacked" the statement by reading every public message in a certain
> time frame exhaustively.
>
> By contr
11 matches
Mail list logo
