Re: ?spam? BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2480 judged NOT GUILTY by Taral

On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 08:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:09 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 23:02 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> = Criminal Case 2480 = > >> Appeal: 2480a > >>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2480 judged NOT GUILTY by Taral

On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 23:21 -0700, Rodlen wrote: > Okay, I hereby consent to that rest destruction stuff. Oh dear, now we're going to have an argument about what "unanimous Support of the panel's other members" in rule 2157 means. Just to make things unambiguous, could you "intend, with unanimous p

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2480 judged NOT GUILTY by Taral

On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 23:14 -0700, Rodlen wrote: > I do that rest destruction stuff. Unfortunately, you need the support of the other two panelists. Intend to do it, and you can do it if the other two agree. (Which they have to; Agora is weird and/or strange sometimes. They have to do it, but you

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2480 judged NOT GUILTY by Taral

Rodlen wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Alex Smith > wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 23:02 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > > = Criminal Case 2480 > = > > Appeal: 2