On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> You just judged that the promise was uncashable. I don't think
> that omd's use of "caching" instead of "cashing" matters, nor
> do I see any other implicit loopholes in the issue.
volatile promise *
On 05/05/11 18:08, Ed Murphy wrote:
You just judged that the promise was uncashable. I don't think
that omd's use of "caching" instead of "cashing" matters, nor
do I see any other implicit loopholes in the issue.
You're confusing the promises; the one I judged was ais523.
-scshunt
scshunt wrote:
> On 05/05/11 16:12, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> No you don't.
>
> Why not?
You just judged that the promise was uncashable. I don't think
that omd's use of "caching" instead of "cashing" matters, nor
do I see any other implicit loopholes in the issue.
I support and do so.
~ Roujo
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 5:08 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 10:06 +, ais523 wrote:
>> This is a test.
>
> Whoops, wrong year...
>
> (I was checking to see if there was some sort of firewall preventing me
> just sending email by hand from this connection
On 05/05/11 16:12, Ed Murphy wrote:
No you don't.
Why not?
scshunt wrote:
> On 05/05/11 11:35, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> On 04/28/11 06:42, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3011
>>>
>>> == CFJ 3011 ==
>>>
>>> I can cash a promise made in the same message in whi
On 05/05/11 14:14, Charles Walker wrote:
On 5 May 2011 21:43, Sean Hunt wrote:
On 05/05/11 11:35, Sean Hunt wrote:
On 04/28/11 06:42, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3011
== CFJ 3011 ==
I ca
On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 10:06 +, ais523 wrote:
> This is a test.
Whoops, wrong year...
(I was checking to see if there was some sort of firewall preventing me
just sending email by hand from this connection. It seems there isn't.)
--
ais523
This is a test.
--
ais523
On 05/05/11 12:16, Charles Walker wrote:
Which, by satisfying, players would cause emselves to cease to be Speaker.
Sure, but we shouldn't create a confluence of goals.
Sean
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 07:48 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > It seems unlikely that CFJ 2003b exists. But in case it does, I attempt
> > to opine REMAND on it (not on the merits of the case, but because it
> > leaves the resulting gamestate easiest to disambiugate).
>
> Did you mean
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> For each of the following CFJs
Whew... for a second I thought you wanted me to write annotations for
all those cases!
On 5 May 2011 19:29, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 05/05/11 11:27, Charles Walker wrote:
>>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> {{ Point Speaker (AI 2)
>>
>> Amend Rule 103 (The Speaker) by replacing
>>
>> The Speaker is the single first-class player who holds the most
>> Postulated Offi
On 5 May 2011 19:30, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 04/24/11 20:00, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3007
>>
>> == CFJ 3007 ==
>>
>> Two instances of the same sentence in different contexts are
>>
On 04/24/11 20:00, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3007
== CFJ 3007 ==
Two instances of the same sentence in different contexts are
different statements.
=
On 05/05/11 11:27, Charles Walker wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
{{ Point Speaker (AI 2)
Amend Rule 103 (The Speaker) by replacing
The Speaker is the single first-class player who holds the most
Postulated Offices, or if there is no such player, the player
who was
On 11-05-05 07:47 AM, Eric Stucky wrote:
I CFJ: Tanner Swett's most recent ENDORSE vote caused him to vote AGAINST.
Arguments: The real question here is whether the wording "most recently
published" applies to the future as well as the past. Clearly, as nobody except
Tanner and me have posted t
On 5 May 2011 15:47, Eric Stucky wrote:
> I CFJ: Tanner Swett's most recent ENDORSE vote caused him to vote AGAINST.
> Arguments: The real question here is whether the wording "most recently
> published" applies to the future as well as the past. Clearly, as nobody
> except Tanner and me have po
ais523 wrote:
> It seems unlikely that CFJ 2003b exists. But in case it does, I attempt
> to opine REMAND on it (not on the merits of the case, but because it
> leaves the resulting gamestate easiest to disambiugate).
Did you mean 3004b?
Tanner L. Swett wrote:
>> 7038 1.7 scshunt Judicial Panel Reform
> ENDORSE the voter that most recently published the word "analytical",
> not including me, as of the time I cast this vote
>> 7051 2 MurphyJanitor's Local #574
> ENDORSE the voter that most recently published the wo
Walker wrote:
>> 7046 1 WalkerThe Machine
> MORE MAGIC
Invalid due to not being a clear synonym for any valid vote value.
21 matches
Mail list logo
