On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2. By CFJ 1303 and 1895, the statement publisher = statement sender
>>and remains you (the physical sender of the message), even when you
>>act on behalf of someone else
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. By CFJ 1303 and 1895, the statement publisher = statement sender
>and remains you (the physical sender of the message), even when you
>act on behalf of someone else.
> --dividing line here
> 3. F
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x.
>>
>> Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting.
>>
>> Thus partnerships can'
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x.
>
> Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting.
>
> Thus partnerships can't do anything.
I disagree with this analysis of my
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R2170 already defines "Executor" (as "the first-class person who sends
> it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be sent"). Going
> back to "Grantor" and "Holder" would work. (History lesson: the rules
> used t
Goethe wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Rule 2170 (Who Am I?) should probably also be amended to state that
>> "X CAN act on behalf of Y" constitutes a legal fiction that Y is the
>> one acting, and define some useful label for X's role in the matter.
>
> How about, er, "Power of
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Any player CAN appeal CFJ 2050 by announcement, upon which this
> rule is repealed.
Why not a rule that allows late appeals with a higher support number
(or Agoran Consent, would need that to get this passed anyway).
-Goethe
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Rule 2170 (Who Am I?) should probably also be amended to state that
> "X CAN act on behalf of Y" constitutes a legal fiction that Y is the
> one acting, and define some useful label for X's role in the matter.
How about, er, "Power of Attorney"? "Grantor",
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 11:03:13 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
> define some useful label for X's role in the matter.
"Executor"
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
> Proposal: Overturn CFJ 2050
> {{
> comex is a co-author of this proposal.
>
> Set the judgment on the question of veracity in CFJ 2050 to TRUE.
>
Oh this is horrid and unneeded though I agree with the arguments.
Just CFJ again, there's no reason a ne
woggle wrote:
> Proposal: Overturn CFJ 2050
> {{
> comex is a co-author of this proposal.
>
> Set the judgment on the question of veracity in CFJ 2050 to TRUE.
This isn't strictly needed. From Rule 591:
The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the
reasoning by which it
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:14 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x.
>>
>> Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting.
>>
>>
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x.
>
> Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting.
>
> Thus partnerships can't do anything.
Umm... that is an absurd precedent.
By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x.
Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting.
Thus partnerships can't do anything.
14 matches
Mail list logo
