root wrote:
> What's more, a reversal of CFJ 1682 would be both useful and supported
> by game custom, as evidenced by this announcement (as well as other
> similar historical agreements) made by Goethe on April 6, 2005:
>
>> I agree, as per the rules of agora, to not check out
>> more cards from
root wrote:
> Now that the matter no longer has any bearing on Partnerships thanks
> to the new, improved Rule 2145, I would like to reiterate my appeal of
> CFJ 1682 in the hopes of garnering more support. I still find fault
> in the logic of the Judge's arguments, and it seemed at the time that
On 5/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> On 5/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Human Point Two judges CFJs 1682 and 1683 FALSE.
>>
>> Arguments:
>>
>> The first paragraph of Rule 1742 consistently uses plurals. I interpret
>> this as requiring such agreements
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
at the times in question, neither Yin Corp nor Yang Corp were
tied to any natural persons whatsoever.
In the three minutes before Mon, 21 May 2007 20:19:27 -0500, Quazie was a
partner in Yin Corp, so Yin Corp could be a person under existing legal
theor
root wrote:
On 5/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Human Point Two judges CFJs 1682 and 1683 FALSE.
Arguments:
The first paragraph of Rule 1742 consistently uses plurals. I interpret
this as requiring such agreements to be made among a set of two or more
players.
I call for the a
5 matches
Mail list logo
