DIS: Re: BUS: Yep yep yep

2011-05-12 Thread Jonathan Rouillard
I don't, actually. =P ~ Roujo On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:50 PM, ais523 wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 15:47 -0400, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: >> I intend, without objection, to inactivate myself. >> I object to the preceding intention. > > I object, to avoid ambiguity. (You can just inactivate you

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Yep yep yep

2011-05-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 12 May 2011, omd wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Trying to remember; I know there was at least one case before where > > the same action could be performed by announcement or dependently; > > there was quite some discussion on whether if a dependent "atte

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Yep yep yep

2011-05-12 Thread omd
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Trying to remember; I know there was at least one case before where > the same action could be performed by announcement or dependently; > there was quite some discussion on whether if a dependent "attempt" > failed whether the by-announcement

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Yep yep yep

2011-05-12 Thread Sean Hunt
On 05/12/11 13:40, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2011, ais523 wrote: On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 15:47 -0400, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: I intend, without objection, to inactivate myself. I object to the preceding intention. I object, to avoid ambiguity. (You can just inactivate yourself witho

DIS: Re: BUS: Yep yep yep

2011-05-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 12 May 2011, ais523 wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 15:47 -0400, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > > I intend, without objection, to inactivate myself. > > I object to the preceding intention. > > I object, to avoid ambiguity. (You can just inactivate yourself without > a dependent action if yo