On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> this certainly is unambiguous at the time it is resolved,
> even though I don't know who the first person to judge a CFJ on July 18
> is, and the action itself hasn't changed between the time it was
> initiated and the time it was resolved.
The whole point o
BobTHJ wrote:
> Sure they are (you are a member of the Protection Racket, remember?).
> Although in this case it seems CotC Murphy out-foxed the CFJ 2065
> winners crowd by assigning a Judicial Panel containing a majority of
> opposed judges.
Blame my randomizer.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:29 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/17 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Judicial corruption at its finest. Why have a reasonable argument when
>> we can simply push this through by sheer force alone?
>>
>> BobTHJ
>>
>
> Exactly my thoughts when I res
2008/7/17 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Judicial corruption at its finest. Why have a reasonable argument when
> we can simply push this through by sheer force alone?
>
> BobTHJ
>
Exactly my thoughts when I responded last night. Sgeo, you've whined in
##nomic for ages about how much you're do
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> With 2 Support, I intend to appeal this judgement.
>
> *sigh* yet another well-reasoned CFJ appealed by "the other side"
> with no soluble arguments to its unreasonableness. -Go
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> With 2 Support, I intend to appeal this judgement.
*sigh* yet another well-reasoned CFJ appealed by "the other side"
with no soluble arguments to its unreasonableness. -Goethe
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or do you think the are some limits on how we can specify parameters without
> which the dependant action would be IMPOSSIBLE to perform besides them
> leading to ambiguity at the time the action would be resolved?
...Req
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:31 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The first issue is whether the statement of intent "unambiguously
> > descri[s] both the action and the method". The method (Agoran Consent)
> > is corr
Why? Cause you don't personally like it?
On 17/07/2008, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj
9 matches
Mail list logo
