omd wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:05 PM, ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 08:06 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
I intend, with two support, to request reconsideration of CFJ 3187.
I support.
I do so.
You need to support it first. (Feel free to CFJ on whether the above
constituted implici
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 29 March 2012 15:53, Mister Snuggles wrote:
>> you have found me.
>
> Hey, there's still three people you could be.
>
> (It's not me.)
as far as i know, all of my messages sent to agora, whether from this
address or from another, have be
On 29 March 2012 15:53, Mister Snuggles wrote:
> you have found me.
Hey, there's still three people you could be.
(It's not me.)
On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 12:17 -0400, omd wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:05 PM, ais523 wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 08:06 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> I intend, with two support, to request reconsideration of CFJ 3187.
> > I support.
>
> I do so.
You have to support before you do so, don't
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Here are the players who deregistered after #1 (the starred ones were
> recent enough for #2 to be blocked by Rule 869's 30-day limit)
hnng
i forgot about that. my registration attempt failed.
the game is up. you have found me.
mister snuggle
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:26 PM, comex wrote:
>> Indeed, I think Agora might be irrevocably broken if email were to
>> cease to exist.
>
> email would platonically start to exist again within 4 weeks, due to AIAN.
While that is possibly one of the best answers to any questi
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:26 PM, comex wrote:
>> Indeed, I think Agora might be irrevocably broken if email were to
>> cease to exist.
>
> email would platonically start to exist again within 4 weeks, due to AIAN.
Only if we consider the existence of email part of the game
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:26 PM, comex wrote:
> Indeed, I think Agora might be irrevocably broken if email were to
> cease to exist.
email would platonically start to exist again within 4 weeks, due to AIAN.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:18 PM, ais523 wrote:
>> Of course. All of Agora depends on email to exist. Contracts depend
>> on language. I agree with you that it doesn't mean that R1728 clause is
>> wholly broken because nothing exists in a vacuum.
>
> The only places email is even mentioned in Ago
On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 16:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
> > It says "depends on", not "depends only on". If one or more factors
> > is necessary to preserve the existence of an entity, and one of them
> > is the contract, then its existence depends on the contract.
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Not entirely true. For minors, their *legal* existence (ability to
>> enter a contract for example) depends on a guardian of some type, if
>> one disappears the court appoints another. -G.
>
> What country are you from?
I'm from anc
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Not entirely true. For minors, their *legal* existence (ability to
> enter a contract for example) depends on a guardian of some type, if
> one disappears the court appoints another. -G.
What country are you from? That is /certainly/ not how it works here in
Canada, or in a
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
It says "depends on", not "depends only on". If one or more factors
is necessary to preserve the existence of
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:26 PM, comex wrote:
>> And my dependents would survive without me but they *legally* depend
>> on me. It's a legal distinction.
>
> No, their *existence* does not depend on you, legally or otherwise.
Right, it depends on a stork. Or an intelligent designer.
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
>>> It says "depends on", not "depends only on". If one or more factors
>>> is necessary to preserve the existence of an entity, and one of them
>>> is the contract, then its
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
>> It says "depends on", not "depends only on". If one or more factors
>> is necessary to preserve the existence of an entity, and one of them
>> is the contract, then its existence depends on the contract.
>
>
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:00 PM, comex wrote:
>> It says "depends on", not "depends only on". If one or more factors
>> is necessary to preserve the existence of an entity, and one of them
> *are necessary
That's not to say there are *no* pedants around here...
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
> It says "depends on", not "depends only on". If one or more factors
> is necessary to preserve the existence of an entity, and one of them
> is the contract, then its existence depends on the contract.
And my dependents would survive without me but they *legall
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Does this matter? Yes. A later part of R2141 reads:
> For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
> the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
> substantive aspects of the rule.
> Therefore, the contract is "acting like"
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:00 PM, comex wrote:
> It says "depends on", not "depends only on". If one or more factors
> is necessary to preserve the existence of an entity, and one of them
*are necessary
--
-c.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I think this holds some water, perhaps more than my argument. And
> it's much simpler.
>
> R1728 allows Contract-actions as long as:
> the effects of that
> action are restricted to altering ent
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> JUDGE'S PROTO-ARGUMENTS:
>>
>> Let's start with the authorizing agent: R1728/24 (power=3) reads in
>> part:
>> A person CAN perform a dependent action authorized by a contract
>> as if that contract were a rule, provided that the above
>>
On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 12:16 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> G. wrote:
>
> > == CFJ 2651 ==
> > If I don't receive 15 objections, it will be POSSIBLE for me to
> > indirectly cause a Rule Change using Contract A.
> > ==
G. wrote:
> == CFJ 2651 ==
> If I don't receive 15 objections, it will be POSSIBLE for me to
> indirectly cause a Rule Change using Contract A.
>
>
> JUDGE'S
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> [I pledged to post a proto. Here it is. I already had a private
> discussion with c. about it; he made some good counterarguments, I hope e
> will re-post it for a discussion to happen before the judgement is due].
Reposting, I submit all be
25 matches
Mail list logo
