On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:00 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although I agree with the
> judge's arguments with respect to contracts which attempt to bind
> would-be parties to other contracts, it does not seem to me like the
> Left Hand is trying to bind anyone who agrees to it to the Right
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit both of the following messages as gratuitous arguments in the
> possibly upcoming appeal of CFJ 2026.
I submit my reply to that message as gratuitous arguments.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:08 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you agree to the Left Hand, then you agree to that clause. If you
> agree to that clause, then you agree that you are a party to /
> agreeing to be bound by the Right Hand.
I can agree to a contract that says Zefram is an
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 1:00 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I support Murphy's attempt to appeal this. Although I agree with the
> judge's arguments with respect to contracts which attempt to bind
> would-be parties to other contracts, it does not seem to me like the
> Left Hand is trying
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgement. Clause 0 of the
> Left Hand agreement (and its Right Hand counterpart) could be removed
> without changing anything else about either contract.
It would then be possible
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> == CFJ 2026 ==
>>
>>The Left Hand is a public contract.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> I judge CFJ 2026 FALSE.
I've gone through the necessary gamestate recalculation if thi
6 matches
Mail list logo
