On Thursday 16 October 2008 11:21:16 am Ed Murphy wrote:
> I object to flipping Nomic 217's Recognition. I will withdraw this
> objection if someone points out subsequent RFCs causing Nomic 217
> to meet the Agoran definition.
Arguably, RFC 2:
{When interpreting and applying the rules, the genera
On 16 Oct 2008, at 07:01, Ian Kelly wrote:
There's not enough context here. The fact that RFC 2 was created via
RFC 1 demonstrates that the rules were at least somewhat amendable,
not that they are. Would the initiator please provide the text of RFC
1 and whatever rules were in effect at the t
2 matches
Mail list logo
