On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:17 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this is like the "decrease by -1" scam.
>
> Any programming language with a 'decrease' method would allow you to
> decrease by -1 in order to increase by 1; but that is (arguably; I
> still disagree :) not standard usa
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It can't, but go back and read what I wrote earlier; there is another
> > interpretation of transference that you haven't addressed.
>
> I don't see t
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:36 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assuming you're referring to what I quoted... I don't think being
> "transferred to a state of being owned by" and entity is a reasonable
> interpretation of an asset being "transferred to" it. The latter (as
> evidenced by its wo
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It can't, but go back and read what I wrote earlier; there is another
> interpretation of transference that you haven't addressed.
I don't see the distinction. You seem to be arguing that "being in
the ownership of " and "bei
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> Is it reasonable to interpret assets as being transferred from a
> >> >> state of being unowned to a state of being owned by ?
> It can't, but go back and read what I wrote earlier; there is another
> interpretation
root wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>
>> > On 3/17/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Is it reasonable to interpret assets as being transferred from a
>> >> state of being unowned to a state of being owned by ?
>> >
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> comex wrote:
>
> > On 3/17/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Is it reasonable to interpret assets as being transferred from a
> >> state of being unowned to a state of being owned by ?
> >
> > Yes, but it is
comex wrote:
> On 3/17/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is it reasonable to interpret assets as being transferred from a
>> state of being unowned to a state of being owned by ?
>
> Yes, but it is unreasonable to interpret objects as being transferred
> from the ownership of to the ow
On 3/17/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it reasonable to interpret assets as being transferred from a
> state of being unowned to a state of being owned by ?
Yes, but it is unreasonable to interpret objects as being transferred
from the ownership of to the ownership of .
root wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> a) "gained by" does not apply; "gain" is explicitly defined (by the
>> fourth paragraph of Rule 2166) as applying only to newly created
>> assets. "transferred to" is ambiguous; it is not explicitly
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> In the interest of preserving the intent of the rule (and I should
> know, I wrote it),
I have no opinion on the rest of the CFJ, but I have to call you out
here: you wrote it with one intent, but voters read it and may have
voted it in with another/misun
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the interest of preserving the intent of the rule (and I should
> know, I wrote it), I interpret that 3) does apply, and does take
> precedence over 1) and 2). Accordingly, I judge TRUE.
One final point. This judgement
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 12:52 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think the analogy fits. A boat traveling from international
> waters was somewhere else before it was in international waters.
> Unless it was constructed there, but even in that unusual situation,
> the material,
13 matches
Mail list logo
