On Wednesday 19 December 2007 23:32:49 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > As H. Notary Goethe can confirm, it is a distinct partnership.
> > If you really *must* know, its basis consists of myself and avpx.
>
> Is this permission for me to confirm or deny this
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> As H. Notary Goethe can confirm, it is a distinct partnership.
> If you really *must* know, its basis consists of myself and avpx.
Is this permission for me to confirm or deny this publicly? (One
might think the fact that I am asking if I have perm
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 22:50:03 Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 19 December 2007 15:54:10 Zefram wrote:
> >> I hereby assign pikhq as judge of CFJ 1836.
> >>
> >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1836
> >>
> >> == CFJ
pikhq wrote:
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 15:54:10 Zefram wrote:
I hereby assign pikhq as judge of CFJ 1836.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1836
== CFJ 1836 ==
Type: inquir
On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> Also, I create the following inquiry case:
> Statement: WALRUS is a player.
> Arguments for: It registered as such.
> It is a private contract.
> It qualifies as a partnership.
> There is no requirement for it to be declared *as* a partnershi
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 18:05:54 Zefram wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >I cannot judge this, since the H. CotC Zefram seems to think a different
case,
> >which WALRUS initiated, is not a case.
>
> I don't see the link between these cases. There is no doubt regarding the
> identity of
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>I cannot judge this, since the H. CotC Zefram seems to think a different case,
>which WALRUS initiated, is not a case.
I don't see the link between these cases. There is no doubt regarding the
identity of the initiator of CFJ 1836, and "Fookiemyartug" has a clear
referen
7 matches
Mail list logo
