On 1 Nov 2008, at 16:55, Ian Kelly wrote:
Actually it's not, since you forgot to make it disinterested.
Goshdarnit.
--
ehird
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2008, at 12:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> I don't want to dump that into R2193 itself. Re-propose adding the
>> relevant bit somewhere in R2105 and I'll support.
>
> Um, it's my Monster proposal. I'm Mad Scientist now
comex wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
>>> 5807 O 1 1.0 comex Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction
>>> Equity Act of 2008
>> SELL(2VP)
> I fill this ticket, specifying FOR.
E already retracted
ehird wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2008, at 12:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> I don't want to dump that into R2193 itself. Re-propose adding the
>> relevant bit somewhere in R2105 and I'll support.
>
> Um, it's my Monster proposal. I'm Mad Scientist now.
I know.
On 29 Oct 2008, at 12:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
I don't want to dump that into R2193 itself. Re-propose adding the
relevant bit somewhere in R2105 and I'll support.
Um, it's my Monster proposal. I'm Mad Scientist now.
--
ehird
ehird wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2008, at 03:31, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>>> 5814 O 1 1.0 ehird i think the whale is a noun
>> AGAINST x 5
>
>
> why?
I don't want to dump that into R2193 itself. Re-propose adding the
relevant bit somewhere in R2105 and I'll support.
On 29 Oct 2008, at 03:31, Ed Murphy wrote:
5814 O 1 1.0 ehird i think the whale is a noun
AGAINST x 5
why?
--
ehird
BobTHJ wrote:
> I leave the Llama Party.
With only Warrigal as a party, it thus dissolves.
This probably invalidates your votes of SLAMA(2VP) on 5803-05
and LLAMA(F) on 5806.
On 26 Oct 2008, at 03:42, Ian Kelly wrote:
Nothing in particular. Just the scams annoyed me, and I'm feeling
petty.
The scams are pretty unrelated to the PBA itself, though; just
because I was pretty
satisfied with them and said "sure" to ais523 finishing it off later
doesn't mean the
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2008, at 21:19, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
>> FOR x 5. Down with the PBA!
>
>
> Damn that evil thing with the qualities of not being incredibly exploitable
> re: rates!
>
> Seriously, what's wrong with it?
Nothing in par
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5807 O 1 1.0 comex Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction
>>> Equity Act of 2008
>> FOR x 5. Down with the PBA!
>
> An AI 1 prop
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5807 O 1 1.0 comex Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction
>> Equity Act of 2008
> FOR x 5. Down with the PBA!
An AI 1 proposal can't amend a contract anyway.
On 25 Oct 2008, at 21:19, Ian Kelly wrote:
FOR x 5. Down with the PBA!
Damn that evil thing with the qualities of not being incredibly
exploitable re: rates!
Seriously, what's wrong with it?
--
ehird
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5818 D 1 3.0 comex Require Clear Announcements
> AGAINST
Why?
On 25 Oct 2008, at 16:04, warrigal wrote:
E has more of a vote, if eir votes are AGAINST.
But in other cases...
--
ehird
warrigal wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 7:01 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 25 Oct 2008, at 02:37, warrigal wrote:
>>> If you join the Llama Party, you can force BobTHJ and me to vote
>>> AGAINST (unless we're both FOR it, in which case you'll be voting
>>> AGAINST and we'll
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 7:01 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2008, at 02:37, warrigal wrote:
>>
>> If you join the Llama Party, you can force BobTHJ and me to vote
>> AGAINST (unless we're both FOR it, in which case you'll be voting
>> AGAINST and we'll be voting FOR).
>
> I
On 25 Oct 2008, at 02:37, warrigal wrote:
If you join the Llama Party, you can force BobTHJ and me to vote
AGAINST (unless we're both FOR it, in which case you'll be voting
AGAINST and we'll be voting FOR).
If e joins the Llama Party e has less of a vote.
--
ehird
comex wrote:
>> 5808 D 0 2.0 Murphy Fix OVERLOOKED
> AGAINST, I don't really think the old version is a valid loophole, but
> this sure has the potential to be. I can see what it's supposed to
> mean ("the rule breach it alleged was at least 200 days...") but it
> could easily be mis
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:37 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5809 D 0 2.0 Murphy Unification
>> VERY STRONGLY AGAINST. Better to force judges to actually think about
>> why exactly the defendant is not gui
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5809 D 0 2.0 Murphy Unification
> VERY STRONGLY AGAINST. Better to force judges to actually think about
> why exactly the defendant is not guilty, rather than judge INNOCENT
> and hope nobody appeals it. The role of
21 matches
Mail list logo
