On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> The proposal that would have given me that title (which I did not
>> want; I still want to award it to myself some day with a scam) was
>> incorrectly reported in the voting results as passing, while in fact
>> it failed.
>
> Which proposal was that?
5282
comex wrote:
> The proposal that would have given me that title (which I did not
> want; I still want to award it to myself some day with a scam) was
> incorrectly reported in the voting results as passing, while in fact
> it failed.
Which proposal was that?
On 6/24/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It wasn't in my February report. It was in pikhq's March report, but
> e didn't include a record of award or "recent events". I can't find the
> awarding event (quite possible I missed it) but I also vaguely remember
> some discussion in March
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> Er, I have no idea. I think I just looked at the last Herald report -
> if there was some confusion, that probably isn't super reliable.
It wasn't in my February report. It was in pikhq's March report, but
e didn't include a record of award or "recent ev
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 10:21:11 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> > On Monday 23 June 2008 11:40:43 Ben Caplan wrote:
> >> comex, would you change your behavior at all if we awarded you the
> >> Scamster? You certainly fulfill the requirements.
> >
> > Oh woops, you
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> On Monday 23 June 2008 11:40:43 Ben Caplan wrote:
>> comex, would you change your behavior at all if we awarded you the
>> Scamster? You certainly fulfill the requirements.
>
> Oh woops, you already have it. It was a nice theory.
Does e? I thought we thou
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> In the case of a direct violation of a contract, there's not that much
> point. In this case:
>
> * An equation declaring "the AFO no longer qualifies as a partnership"
>may or may not be effective. R591's last paragraph says that an
>inquiry judg
root wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:29 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Although this is indeed a beautiful judgement, it appears you have
>> taken the flexibility offered by equity cases and misinterpreted it as
>> the ability to impose Lindrum World on the parties to a contract
>> in
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I think you may be right that R101 does interfere with R1742's claim
> that contracts include the intention that they be governed by the
> rules. This leads to two interesting conclusions: 1) R101(iv) should
> be a privilege, not a right (i.e., you should
On Monday 23 June 2008 11:40:43 Ben Caplan wrote:
> comex, would you change your behavior at all if we awarded you the
> Scamster? You certainly fulfill the requirements.
Oh woops, you already have it. It was a nice theory.
On Monday 23 June 2008 10:27:36 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I am glad that this was delivered in its pre-trial phase, for the "real"
> judgement, reading your response, will be harsher. OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
> AFO, you may want to work on protecting the contract and your personal
> involvement with comex'
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:21 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dubious. I believe we've previously established that agreeing to a
>> contract is also agreement to abide by any equation that may arise
>> from that contra
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
>> If they're as limited as you claim, then they're very nearly useless.
>> What's the point of establishing a SHALL in an equation where the
>> original contract most likely already has one?
>
> To facilitate the establishment of a replacement agreement that all
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (3) the AFO, in becoming, of its own mechanisms, a party to the Bank
>> contract, has made actions and adjustments required of its whole self
>> (e.g. its constituent agreement) subject
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dubious. I believe we've previously established that agreeing to a
> contract is also agreement to abide by any equation that may arise
> from that contract --
Do you have a precedent for this? Proposal 5531 would have made
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:29 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (3) the AFO, in becoming, of its own mechanisms, a party to the Bank
>> contract, has made actions and adjustments required of its whole self
>> (e.g. its c
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (3) the AFO, in becoming, of its own mechanisms, a party to the Bank
> contract, has made actions and adjustments required of its whole self
> (e.g. its constituent agreement) subject to the equity court.
Even if this statem
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Be It So Ordered.
It's lovely. But will it work?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Third, the AFO SHALL, within a week of this judgement taking effect,
>> act through its members to ensure that its members restore all
>> currencies to the Bank which were stolen by
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Third, the AFO SHALL, within a week of this judgement taking effect,
> act through its members to ensure that its members restore all
> currencies to the Bank which were stolen by the scam. Specifically, its
> members must p
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/24 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Be It So Ordered.
>>
>> -Goethe
>>
>
> This is the best judgement I've ever read.
>
> ehird
>
I never understood orders see CFJs 1543-1545 & 1555-1557.
2008/6/24 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Be It So Ordered.
>
> -Goethe
>
This is the best judgement I've ever read.
ehird
22 matches
Mail list logo
