On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Is there a different proposal out there that's removing the entire
Junta thing (e.g. the Black-Ribbon granting powers, Patent Titles,
and so forth)?
I suppose we could wait for the munificence of our Dear Leader
and hope e does a self-repeal, but I prefer
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 16:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > That's the problem I was trying to solve with my ratification, by
> > just destroying the thing before the ambiguity created an unnecessary
> > mess. However, I missed this bit of rule 2466 "Wh
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> That's the problem I was trying to solve with my ratification, by
> just destroying the thing before the ambiguity created an unnecessary
> mess. However, I missed this bit of rule 2466 "When an action is
> performed on behalf of a principal, then the
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> If it's a proposal, then I submitted it - so if I withdraw it, then
> there exists no reality in which G. is the author of a proposal, as e is
> not a player.
Er, did you read my CFJ arguments?
But also, if you were capable of withdrawing it, you published:
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> Actually, I changed my mind with respect to that last parenthetical:
>> I'm not sure what the "path of least resistance" here actually is. As
>> far as I can tell, none of the rules limit the Proposal
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:52 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Actually, I changed my mind with respect to that last parenthetical:
> > I'm not sure what the "path of least resistance" here actually is. As
> > far as I can tell, none of the rules limit the Propo
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> Actually, I changed my mind with respect to that last parenthetical:
> I'm not sure what the "path of least resistance" here actually is. As
> far as I can tell, none of the rules limit the Proposal Pool to
> containing only proposals (it's just that they o
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Is there a different proposal out there that's removing the entire
> Junta thing (e.g. the Black-Ribbon granting powers, Patent Titles,
> and so forth)?
>
> I suppose we could wait for the munificence of our Dear Leader
> and hope e does a se
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 23:41 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:32 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document: {{There
> > is no proposal with the title "Throw off Your
> > Chains", and any entity which would otherwise be such a pro
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> I'll leave the proposal around as the CFJs are interesting, but
> that rule will be gone before the proposal in question pends I
> believe.
Is there a different proposal out there that's removing the entire
Junta thing (e.g. the Black-Ribbon granting powers,
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:32 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document: {{There
> is no proposal with the title "Throw off Your
> Chains", and any entity which would otherwise be such a proposal is
> not a proposal.}}
Could you give more information
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:33 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> >> 2942 was just amended when i Deputized Assessor, it's contents no longer
> >> delay anything, and it's go
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:27 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > 2942 was just amended when i Deputized Assessor, it's contents no longer
> > delay anything, and it's got a different name.
>
> Oh well shoot, I searched recent past on the term 2942 which isn't used
>
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:28 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > 2942 was just amended when i Deputized Assessor, it's contents no longer
> > delay anything, and it's got a different name.
>
> Oh well shoot, I searched recent past on the term 2942 which isn't used
>
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> 2942 was just amended when i Deputized Assessor, it's contents no longer
> delay anything, and it's got a different name.
Oh well shoot, I searched recent past on the term 2942 which isn't used
in the proposal. Serves me right for trying to be clear by put
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Note to Arbitor: this message contains 2 CFJs, below.
>
> I use the BÖÖ Agency to submit the following proposal, "Throw off Your
> Chains", AI-3, specifying that it is a Competition Proposal for the
> current proposal competition:
> ---
16 matches
Mail list logo
