I favor Aris being assigned this case.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jun 28, 2017, at 10:39 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:02 PM, omd wrote:
>> CFJ: Shinies are assets.
>>
>> Arguments: The recently resurrected rule 2
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:02 PM, omd wrote:
> CFJ: Shinies are assets.
>
> Arguments: The recently resurrected rule 2166 says:
>
> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its
> backing document), and existing solely because its backing
> document defines its ex
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2017, at 6:02 PM, omd wrote:
>
>> CFJ: Shinies are assets.
>
> I would prefer not to judge this.
>
> -o
>
I would be more than happy to judge this, but I have a feeling people
would think I had a conflict of interest? It's not l
On Jun 28, 2017, at 6:02 PM, omd wrote:
> CFJ: Shinies are assets.
I would prefer not to judge this.
-o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
On 6/28/2017 3:02 PM, omd wrote:
CFJ: Shinies are assets.
Arguments: The recently resurrected rule 2166 says:
An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its
backing document), and existing solely because its backing
document defines its existence.
Proto: Amen
Wooble wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Gratuitous: Because, in ordinary language, support and objection are
>> mutually exclusive unless qualified (e.g. "I support sending troops to
>> Guilder but I object to having them shoot first").
>
> Ordinary language is com
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Gratuitous: Because, in ordinary language, support and objection are
> mutually exclusive unless qualified (e.g. "I support sending troops to
> Guilder but I object to having them shoot first").
Ordinary language is completely irrelevant when
omd wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Arguments: Â Here are all the questions of interpretation that I see:
>>
>> Â 1) Does support implicitly withdraw one's earlier objection?
>
> Gratuitous: Why would it?
Gratuitous: Because, in ordinary language, support and obje
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Arguments: Here are all the questions of interpretation that I see:
>
> 1) Does support implicitly withdraw one's earlier objection?
Gratuitous: Why would it?
On 05/17/11 13:51, Ed Murphy wrote:
> G.> [replying to ais523] I favor this.
Gratuitous: I purposefully had no idea what I was intending to favor.
I think I was favoring the datestamp.
On 05/17/11 13:51, Ed Murphy wrote:
Wooble wrote:
If and only if Agora was Satisfied with my intent to register with
Agoran Consent, I do so.
(I count 3 supporters and 3 objectors, but Murphy's count was 4 and 1.
I think eir count is almost certainly wrong because ais523 and ehird
both unambig
11 matches
Mail list logo
