On Friday 03 August 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I also appeal CFJ 1714 on the same grounds.
You can't directly anymore; you have to support my intention to appeal it
(and so does Wooble).
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>I'd think the wording of the statement to be evaluated would be taken
>to mean that it's stipulated that the foreign nomic allows it.
You certainly did not stipulate that the foreign nomic allows players
of Agora to act on Agora's behalf. If you had, in suitable terms,
then
On 8/3/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/3/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I appeal the ruling in CFJ 1714 on the grounds that the Judge
> > apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "if", the
> > concept of stipulating certain conditions, and perhaps fo
On 8/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >I intend to, with 2 supporters, initiate an appeal concerning Zefram's
> >ruling of CFJ 1714,
>
> Oh goody, first ever usage of the new dependent action rules. I hereby
> vote OBJECT.
I don't think that has any practical effect, does
On 8/3/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I appeal the ruling in CFJ 1714 on the grounds that the Judge
> apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "if", the
> concept of stipulating certain conditions, and perhaps formal logic in
> general. I suggest a ruling of REASSIGN
On 8/3/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I appeal the ruling in CFJ 1714 on the grounds that the Judge
> apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "if", the
> concept of stipulating certain conditions, and perhaps formal logic in
> general. I suggest a ruling of REASSIGN
On Friday 03 August 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I appeal the ruling in CFJ 1714 on the grounds that the Judge
> apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "if", the
> concept of stipulating certain conditions, and perhaps formal logic in
> general.
signature.asc
Description: This
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>I appeal the ruling in CFJ 1714
You can't appeal it on your own. You need 2 support.
>apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "if", the
>concept of stipulating certain conditions, and perhaps formal logic in
>general.
I understand these perfectly well. The
8 matches
Mail list logo
