On Jan 30, 2007, at 8:03 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On 1/29/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Grey Knight wrote:
Upon adoption of this proposal, Rule 2127 (Conditional Votes) is
repealed.
I hereby modify the Adoption Index of this proposal to
On 1/29/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Grey Knight wrote:
Upon adoption of this proposal, Rule 2127 (Conditional Votes) is
repealed.
I hereby modify the Adoption Index of this proposal to "2 yellow
smarties".
I consider the attempt to
On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Grey Knight wrote:
Upon adoption of this proposal, Rule 2127 (Conditional Votes) is
repealed.
I hereby modify the Adoption Index of this proposal to "2 yellow
smarties".
I consider the attempt to modify the AI to fail. I'll have to
cross check the
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>I consider the attempt to modify the AI to fail.
There's nothing preventing it. There's no Rule restricting the range
of values that an AI can take.
-zefram
On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Grey Knight wrote:
Upon adoption of this proposal, Rule 2127 (Conditional Votes) is
repealed.
I hereby modify the Adoption Index of this proposal to "2 yellow
smarties".
I consider the attempt to modify the AI to fail. I'll have to cross
check the ru
Maud wrote:
This was indeed part of Cobalt, as it turns out, and I believe I earlier
suggested that you had removed it when you repealed Switches. I
apologize for making this suggestion.
No worries, I was more concerned about figuring out when it happened
then who did it (I seem to remember h
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 08:52:20AM -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Maud, was this part of Cobalt, if so did you anticipate that
> Index has a common mathematical definition so we can use 754(3)?
Goethe,
This was indeed part of Cobalt, as it turns out, and I believe I earlier
suggested that you had r
Zefram wrote:
Same time as Unanimity went, presumably. They were in the same Rule.
Ah yes, Rule 1274 was repealed by The Cobalt Repeals, June 20, 2005.
Uh, adopted Unanimously.
Maud, is there some hidden trick that R1274 is unnecessary due to
common mathematical language, or were all prop
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Uh oh, when did the definition "Index = real number" disappear from
>the Ruleset.
Same time as Unanimity went, presumably. They were in the same Rule.
-zefram
Grey Knight wrote:
I hereby modify the Adoption Index of this proposal to "2 yellow
smarties".
Uh oh, when did the definition "Index = real number" disappear from
the Ruleset. Can't pin this one on me, it wasn't there a month
before the Great Repeals (just checked).
Maud, was this part of Co
10 matches
Mail list logo
