Peekee wrote:
Quoting Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Peekee wrote:
1+1 = 3
Based on the above: I am the winner there are no rules.
How do you figure?
egg.
Fish!
Quoting Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Peekee wrote:
1+1 = 3
Based on the above: I am the winner there are no rules.
How do you figure?
egg.
--
Peekee
Ed Murphy wrote:
>How do you figure?
It's fundamental propositional logic: everything follows from a falsehood.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Another possible interpretation is that the
>members are indirectly in unanimous agreement to abide by the
>outcome of the non-unanimous voting process (R1742 should
>probably be amended to make this explicit).
That's pretty much what I intended when I drafted the pr
Peekee wrote:
1+1 = 3
Based on the above: I am the winner there are no rules.
How do you figure?
comex wrote:
On Monday 22 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
It's also an open question whether a non-unanimous voting process for
amendment (such as the rules have) is compatible with R1742.
Primo Corporation's existence makes CFJing on this easy...
R1742 never says that its method is the only wa
On 10/22/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 22 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> > It's also an open question whether a non-unanimous voting process for
> > amendment (such as the rules have) is compatible with R1742.
>
> Primo Corporation's existence makes CFJing on this easy...
By CFJ
On 10/22/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >To what rules and behavior are you referring?
>
> The rules impose obligations on non-players, which is inconsistent with
> them being a contract with the players as the set of parties. (An amended
> version of R2171 that widens
On Monday 22 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> It's also an open question whether a non-unanimous voting process for
> amendment (such as the rules have) is compatible with R1742.
Primo Corporation's existence makes CFJing on this easy...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message
Ian Kelly wrote:
>To what rules and behavior are you referring?
The rules impose obligations on non-players, which is inconsistent with
them being a contract with the players as the set of parties. (An amended
version of R2171 that widens the notional set of parties would run into
trouble with th
On 10/22/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >I initiate an equity case with the rules as contract,
>
> You can't. The rules do not constitute a contract as defined by R1742,
> and so the initiation procedure defined by R2169 is not available.
> Although R2171 purports to treat
11 matches
Mail list logo
