On Nov 28, 2007, at 9:03 PM, comex wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 8:55 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I vote AGAINT
Have you made a private arrangement with the vote collector?
Has BobTHJ made a private arrangment regarding the meaning of nkep...?
And kudos on being the first per
On Nov 28, 2007 8:55 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I vote AGAINT
Have you made a private arrangement with the vote collector?
On Nov 28, 2007, at 5:45 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
Ho-hum. TTttPF:
On Nov 28, 2007 2:43 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend, on behalf of Agora, with Agoran Consent, to
nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueo
ydjjk.
BobTHJ
I vote AGAINT
-
{{db-nonsense}}
On Nov 28, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
I intend, on behalf of Agora, with Agoran Consent, to
nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueo
ydjjk.
I ogltrwqifdentmaoeficbhapqieflwieeadnttoedmbenotgevcni
On Nov 28, 2007 5:28 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >One last comment before I get back to work. R591 states regarding the
> >UNDETERMINED judgement that "uncertainty as to how to interpret or
> >apply the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for
> >this
BobTHJ wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 5:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
Oh, and just to note: The proof already exists. It simply requires
time for me to make it public.
I don't buy it. Provide an outline of the proof and I may change
my mind.
Here's a possibility:
The
On Nov 28, 2007 5:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
> > Oh, and just to note: The proof already exists. It simply requires
> > time for me to make it public.
>
> I don't buy it. Provide an outline of the proof and I may change
> my mind.
>
>
Here's a possibility:
The i
Ian Kelly wrote:
>One last comment before I get back to work. R591 states regarding the
>UNDETERMINED judgement that "uncertainty as to how to interpret or
>apply the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for
>this purpose". This could arguably be extended to include uncertainty
>a
BobTHJ wrote:
Oh, and just to note: The proof already exists. It simply requires
time for me to make it public.
I don't buy it. Provide an outline of the proof and I may change
my mind.
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) measures appropriateness as follows:
Appropriateness in an inquiry case internally involves considerations of
what information was available at particular times. It is intended that
appropriateness of a judgement doesn't change after a judgement is given.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Thus this phrase could be an inaction
>rather than an action. This argument shows that even if we accept that it's
>a verb phrase (which we don't necessarily accept), it is UNDETERMINED if it is
>about an action.
You're presupposing th
On Nov 28, 2007 3:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > I believe I can furnish such proof, although it may take me several
> > days to have it ready. Would you be willing to extend the window?
>
> No. I can't think of a valid reason why legi
comex wrote:
If I *right now*, to the PF, defined nkep as "deregister" (not claiming to
have defined it beforehand), would TRUE then become appropriate for this
appeal?
Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) measures appropriateness as follows:
AFFIRM - past
REMAND - unspecified
REASSIGN - unspecified
OVER
Goethe wrote:
For example, nkep could be a contract action in a private contract, which
is permissible or not permissible by the contract (and thus answerable to
in Agoran courts).
[snip]
A compromise offer: nkep is clearly not understandable to most Agorans,
and thus the burden falls onto th
BobTHJ wrote:
I intend, on behalf of Agora, with Agoran Consent, to
nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk.
NttPF, you schlemiel!
On Nov 28, 2007 3:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > I believe I can furnish such proof, although it may take me several
> > days to have it ready. Would you be willing to extend the window?
>
> No. I can't think of a valid reason why legi
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I believe I can furnish such proof, although it may take me several
> days to have it ready. Would you be willing to extend the window?
No. I can't think of a valid reason why legitimate evidence (that
existed at the time, no retconning) can't be produce
On Nov 28, 2007 2:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example, nkep could be a contract action in a private contract, which
> is permissible or not permissible by the contract (and thus answerable to
> in Agoran courts).
One last comment before I get back to work. R591 states rega
On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Additionally, wouldn't a finding of UNDETERMINED cause a split in the
> > gamestate around the question of whether or not comex wins?
>
> Unfortunate perhaps, but I prefer not to judge based on convenience of
> implications.
Undetermined is a r
On Nov 28, 2007 3:09 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > The way I see it, if part of a clause is nonsense, then the whole
> > clause is nonsense.
>
> Were you around for that particular moment in the UNDEAD, where we posted
> nonsense that looke
On Nov 28, 2007 2:56 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 2:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A compromise offer: nkep is clearly not understandable to most Agorans,
> > and thus the burden falls onto the users of the term to show it is
> > an action. If th
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> The way I see it, if part of a clause is nonsense, then the whole
> clause is nonsense.
Were you around for that particular moment in the UNDEAD, where we posted
nonsense that looked like sense to hide the sense that looked like nonsense?
-G.
On Nov 28, 2007 2:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm afraid I disagree. I know nothing of the kind. We don't have enough
> information to determine what it means. (By the way, the "to" is not part
> of the nonsense phrase, that's important in construing a possible verb).
You're
On Nov 28, 2007 2:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm afraid I disagree. I know nothing of the kind. We don't have enough
> information to determine what it means. (By the way, the "to" is not part
> of the nonsense phrase, that's important in construing a possible verb).
>
> For
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> A compromise offer: nkep is clearly not understandable to most Agorans,
> and thus the burden falls onto the users of the term to show it is
> an action. If they can provide evidence in four days that nkep is an
> action (e.g. a copy of a contract, with
On Nov 28, 2007 2:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 2:43 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I intend, on behalf of Agora, with Agoran Consent, to
> > nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk.
>
> In the event that the above i
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I'm not comfortable with this. We know that the nonsense phrase means
> neither "to act" nor "to not act". This leads to a judgment of FALSE,
> not UNDETERMINED.
I'm afraid I disagree. I know nothing of the kind. We don't have enough
information to det
On Nov 28, 2007 2:38 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 2:34 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of course, on behalf of Agora. I would be embarrassing to
> > nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk
> > for myself.
>
> Then I thi
On Nov 28, 2007 2:34 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, on behalf of Agora. I would be embarrassing to
> nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk
> for myself.
Then I think that you need to specify that in your notice of intent.
-root
On Nov 28, 2007 2:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 2:24 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I intend, with Agoran Consent, to
> > nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk.
>
> What rule defines that as a dependent action? Or
On Nov 28, 2007 2:24 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to
> nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk.
What rule defines that as a dependent action? Or did you mean on
behalf of Agora?
-root
On Nov 28, 2007 2:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alternatively, I intend, with the consent of Justices Goethe and root,
> to have the board of appeals for CFJ 1805 (1805a) post the following
> message to the public forum:
>
> (For brevity, the board adopts Judge BobTHJ's abbreviation
On Nov 28, 2007 1:43 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The board hereby overrules to UNDETERMINED. The various gratuitous arguments
> center around whether we can infer noun vs. verb phrases in the nonsense
> statement. But trivially, the rules distinguish "actions" from "inactions"
>
33 matches
Mail list logo
