On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 19:36 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Much of what you've written can be treated as the rights of natural
> > persons behind the partnership being preserved, without directly
> > claiming rights for partnerships
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Much of what you've written can be treated as the rights of natural
> persons behind the partnership being preserved, without directly
> claiming rights for partnerships. For example, for fora participation,
> all messages,
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
> For example, R101 (v). If a
> partnership I'm in is forced somehow to agree to a secret contract,
> which imposes obligations to the partnership that devolve onto me, I
> can claim R101 (v) on behalf of the partnership, lest I be indirectly
> bound by a Mousetr
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> What's wrong with allowing partnerships to initiate CFJs anyway?
>> Using them to circumvent Excess. I wouldn't want to loosen up
>> any Excess limitations right
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R101, when I wrote it, was an experiment in "Agora as a society":
> if we have real persons trying to exist, live or participate in
> a virtual society that preserves, respects, or protects the natural
> rights of its partici
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Using them to circumvent Excess. I wouldn't want to loosen up
>> any Excess limitations right now. -G.
>
> Proto: Players SHALL NOT submit obnoxi
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
>>
>>> Even partnerships should have the right of
>>> participation in the fora
>>
>> Why? Partnerships are a rules-based constructs with no inherent na
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/18 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Why? Partnerships are a rules-based constructs with no inherent natural
>> rights. -Goethe
>
> Being able to post to a-b is not exactly an inherent natural right.
R101, when I wrote it, was an experiment in
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using them to circumvent Excess. I wouldn't want to loosen up
> any Excess limitations right now. -G.
Proto: Players SHALL NOT submit obnoxious CFJs that do not serve to
resolve legitimate matters of controversy. Whenever
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
>
>> Even partnerships should have the right of
>> participation in the fora
>
> Why? Partnerships are a rules-based constructs with no inherent natural
> rights. -Goethe
Because they ot
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> What's wrong with allowing partnerships to initiate CFJs anyway?
>
> Using them to circumvent Excess. I wouldn't want to loosen up
> any Excess limitations right now. -G.
>
Yes,
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> What's wrong with allowing partnerships to initiate CFJs anyway?
Using them to circumvent Excess. I wouldn't want to loosen up
any Excess limitations right now. -G.
2008/7/18 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why? Partnerships are a rules-based constructs with no inherent natural
> rights. -Goethe
Being able to post to a-b is not exactly an inherent natural right.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
> Even partnerships should have the right of
> participation in the fora
Why? Partnerships are a rules-based constructs with no inherent natural
rights. -Goethe
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proto-Proposal: Indirect partnership rights
>> (AI = 2, please)
>>
>> Amend Rule 2145 (Partnerships) by appending this text:
>>
>> The ability of a part
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Indirect partnership rights
> (AI = 2, please)
>
> Amend Rule 2145 (Partnerships) by appending this text:
>
> The ability of a partnership's members to exercise rights in eir
> own names shall, prima
16 matches
Mail list logo
