On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:36 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> > another ribbon". Can you suggest any other interpretation that the
> > author of the rule could plausibly have intended?
> >
>
> The intent of the rules is excluded entirely from the list of
> considerations in Rule 217.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 8:36 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I would like to ask for arguments for an issue completely unaddressed in
> arguments: How does Rule 2602's use of a continuously-evaluated condition,
> as in Rule 2350 and part of Rule 103, affect the operation of the "once"
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 01:25, James Cook wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:13, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 01:07, James Cook wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:05, James Cook wrote:
> >> > However, the use of the word "it" in the text "but already owned it"
> >> > in
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:25, James Cook wrote:
> I don't think this is a case of "once for each time the condition is
> fulfulled".
(Or, maybe I should have said: I think this is a case where "once per
time the condition is fulfilled" is given an explicit definition by
the rule in question.)
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:13, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 01:07, James Cook wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:05, James Cook wrote:
>> > However, the use of the word "it" in the text "but already owned it"
>> > in R2602 indicates to me that the text of the rule is written wi
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 01:07, James Cook wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:05, James Cook wrote:
> > However, the use of the word "it" in the text "but already owned it"
> > in R2602 indicates to me that the text of the rule is written with the
> > point of view that there's only one of each ri
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:05, James Cook wrote:
> However, the use of the word "it" in the text "but already owned it"
> in R2602 indicates to me that the text of the rule is written with the
> point of view that there's only one of each ribbon colour. Otherwise
> it could have been written "but a
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 04:36, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I would like to ask for arguments for an issue completely unaddressed in
> arguments: How does Rule 2602's use of a continuously-evaluated condition,
> as in Rule 2350 and part of Rule 103, affect the operation of the "once"?
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 14:38, Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> I recuse omd from CFJ 3783 (I know you put forward some preliminary
> thoughts on the case omd, which is why I waited a bit, but it's been a
> long time on this case now).
>
> I assign CFJ 3783
9 matches
Mail list logo
