Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emptiness

2013-09-26 Thread Benjamin Schultz
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Benjamin Schultz < ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Benjamin Schultz < > ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:12 PM, omd wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Benjamin Schultz >>> wrote: >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emptiness

2013-09-26 Thread Benjamin Schultz
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Benjamin Schultz < ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:12 PM, omd wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Benjamin Schultz >> wrote: >> > Part of the exercise is -- when was the last time Agora reenacted a >> Rule? >> >> Might be M

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emptiness

2013-09-26 Thread Benjamin Schultz
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:12 PM, omd wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Benjamin Schultz > wrote: > > Part of the exercise is -- when was the last time Agora reenacted a Rule? > > Might be Messy Statements. But note that > > The ID number of the new rule cannot > be s

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emptiness

2013-09-25 Thread Kerim Aydin
The uncertainty about what "re-enact" means in the specific mechanics is probably sufficient ambiguity in rule-change specification to cause the whole thing to fail. Just a guess... Also note: didn't say what version of the rule was being re-enacted... On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Joe Stefek wrote: >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emptiness

2013-09-25 Thread Joe Stefek
I would question whether it is, in fact, a new rule. It seems to me, at a cursory glance, that this is an existing, but repealed, rule, and this instrument is proposing to repeal the repeal. --aperfectring On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:12 PM, omd wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Benjami

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emptiness

2013-09-25 Thread omd
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > Part of the exercise is -- when was the last time Agora reenacted a Rule? Might be Messy Statements. But note that The ID number of the new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any attempt to so

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emptiness

2013-09-25 Thread Benjamin Schultz
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > > TITLE: THE INSANE REPEALS, PART A > > REENACT RULE 1729 WITH ITS MOST RECENT TEXT. INCREASE ITS MODIFICATION > NUMBER. > > > > > > > > TITLE: THE INSANE REPEALS, PART B > >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emptiness

2013-09-25 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > TITLE:  THE INSANE REPEALS, PART A > REENACT RULE 1729 WITH ITS MOST RECENT TEXT.  INCREASE ITS MODIFICATION > NUMBER. > > > > TITLE:  THE INSANE REPEALS, PART B > IF "THE INSANE REPEALS, PART A" PASSED, THEN: > * REPEAL ALL POWER=1,