On 23 September 2010 16:19, Sgeo wrote:
> If and only if ehird will not be compensated in Agora for supporting this
> appeal in any manner other than props, I support
Obviously too vague to work, and obviously too paranoid to not be
gawped at. ais523 even publicly mentioned this appeal to me in
#
I appear to have accidentally sent to a-d... would the judge still consider
the intended question? Should I resend ttpf?
On Sep 23, 2010 12:01 PM, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Sgeo wrote:
>> If and only if ehird will not be compensated in Agora for supporting
>> this appeal in a
If and only if ehird will not be compensated in Agora for supporting this
appeal in any manner other than props, I support
On Sep 22, 2010 7:23 PM, "Elliott Hird"
wrote:
> On 22 September 2010 20:50, ais523 wrote:
>> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this. An impossible statement
>> implies any
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 20:50 +0100, ais523 wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 10:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Ed Murphy
> > > wrote:
> > > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2867
> > > >
> > >
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:19 PM, ais523 wrote:
> Further gratuitous arguments: This is a case of "if X, then ..." where X
> is impossible being trivially true. It's different from "if the rules
> were somehow modified such that X could come about, then most
> likely ...", which is what the judgeme
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:19 PM, ais523 wrote:
> Further gratuitous arguments: This is a case of "if X, then ..." where X
> is impossible being trivially true. It's different from "if the rules
> were somehow modified such that X could come about, then most
> likely ...", which is what the judgeme
6 matches
Mail list logo
