Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 17, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
I withdraw my previous comments arguing for power=2, and request an
appeals judgment of REMAND.
No remand please
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> comex clearly believes these rules do not exist at all based on eir
> judgment. So which is it? If these rules exist at power=1 (preferable
> in my opinion) then someone else should support my appeal so more
> appropriate arguments can be submit
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 02:08, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:59, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Roger Hicks wrote:
Soanyone want to fix this? If this judgment stands all current
deals are in error since the cards and decks do not exist.
BobTHJ
>>>
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:59, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> Soanyone want to fix this? If this judgment stands all current
>>> deals are in error since the cards and decks do not exist.
>>>
>>> BobTHJ
>> Why is that? Defining cards isn't secured as far as I se
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:59, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Soanyone want to fix this? If this judgment stands all current
>> deals are in error since the cards and decks do not exist.
>>
>> BobTHJ
> Why is that? Defining cards isn't secured as far as I see.
>
All the rules that def
Roger Hicks wrote:
> Soanyone want to fix this? If this judgment stands all current
> deals are in error since the cards and decks do not exist.
>
> BobTHJ
Why is that? Defining cards isn't secured as far as I see.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:02, Benjamin
Caplan wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> I agree with c. here; rule changes have a special standard and absolute
>>> and precise specification is required. �I screwed up. �-G.
>>
>> On my part, I apologize that
comex wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I agree with c. here; rule changes have a special standard and absolute
>> and precise specification is required. �I screwed up. �-G.
>
> On my part, I apologize that I have to leave in the middle of what
> looks like some cont
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I agree with c. here; rule changes have a special standard and absolute
> and precise specification is required. I screwed up. -G.
On my part, I apologize that I have to leave in the middle of what
looks like some controversy over the rulese
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comex wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taral wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
seems fairly unambiguous to
coppro wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comex wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taral wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
> seems fairly unambiguous to
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 14:48 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:46, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > AI is a term defined and used in many places in the rules. There is no
> > qway to say that setting a rule's AI is unambiguously setting a rule's
> > power. My interpretation would be that it
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:46, Sean Hunt wrote:
> AI is a term defined and used in many places in the rules. There is no
> qway to say that setting a rule's AI is unambiguously setting a rule's
> power. My interpretation would be that it simply sets its AI. The
> alternative interpretation, which i
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comex wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taral wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
seems fairly unambiguous to me as a request to se
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taral wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
>>> seems fairly unambiguous to me as a request to set power to 2.
>>
>> I sup
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taral wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
>> seems fairly unambiguous to me as a request to set power to 2.
>
> I support. More common sense please.
Rule 217 only goes
16 matches
Mail list logo
