ais523 wrote:
> Wasn't proposal 5810 just a proposal to import the critical-mass rule
> into B, though, given the circumstances? Proposal 5777 had already
> passed, and I don't think Agorans would be likely to have missed its
> significance. I've been approving Monster proposals due to significanc
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 12:42 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Taral wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Elliott Hird
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Without 2 objections I intend to cause the Monster to repeal rules 2214,
> >> 2192 and 2193.
> >
> > I object.
>
> I also object. Proposal 58
On 5 Nov 2008, at 19:36, Alex Smith wrote:
Why? This is basically just fixing a buggy proposal via Monster. It'll
be fixed by proposal otherwise, but this way is faster.
Agora nationalism?
--
ehird
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 11:28 -0800, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Without 2 objections I intend to cause the Monster to repeal rules 2214,
> > 2192 and 2193.
>
> I object.
>
Why? This is basically just fixing a buggy proposal via Monst
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 16:37 -0800, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 16:30, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Elliott Hird
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I repeal rules 2214, 2192 and 2193.
> >
> > This fails because you are not an instrument (see
5 matches
Mail list logo
