On 5/15/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, but even Her Discordian Divinity can be mistaken. My first
name is Codomain, as was my mother's first name, as was her mother's
first name, and so on. Passing to the colimit, we recover the fact
that my directed family has a Cokernel.
On 5/15/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
C for Charles, obviously. Your mother had a strange sense of humor in
selecting your middle name. :D
Sorry, but even Her Discordian Divinity can be mistaken. My first
name is Codomain, as was my mother's first name, as was her mother's
first name, a
On 5/15/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
C. Maud Image There's your clue right there, Your Chaoticity!
-/
C for Charles, obviously. Your mother had a strange sense of humor in
selecting your middle name. :D
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anythin
On 5/15/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would expect a goddess to know not to call me ``sir''.
Bah, you'd spoil a perfectly quotable statement with some nitpick. :P
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"She, he... do you really want to get that close?"
-- Me
On 5/13/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You, sir, are cited for the use of domain-specific meanings in a
general context. :P
I would expect a goddess to know not to call me ``sir''.
--
C. Maud Image There's your clue right there, Your Chaoticity!
-/
I'm not invited t
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
If someone did
what you said, then an explicit list as per the last sentence of
R107(b) would be our only recourse.
That recourse is not in fact available. Per CFJ 1652, the set of
eligib
Ed Murphy wrote:
> If someone did
>what you said, then an explicit list as per the last sentence of
>R107(b) would be our only recourse.
That recourse is not in fact available. Per CFJ 1652, the set of
eligible voters can change during the votin
Maud wrote:
On 5/13/07, quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If a disagreement occurs, then there was not enough information provided
to allow the public to agree.
What if someone is simply recalcitrant and maintains that Peter
Abelard is always an eligible voter if no list of eligible voters is
On 5/13/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What if someone is simply recalcitrant and maintains that Peter
Abelard is always an eligible voter if no list of eligible voters is
provided? Here it seems that the failure of public agreement is
contingent and that it is the intent of the in
Michael Slone wrote:
On 5/13/07, quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If a disagreement occurs, then there was not enough information provided
to allow the public to agree.
What if someone is simply recalcitrant and maintains that Peter
Abelard is always an eligible voter if no list of eligible v
On 5/13/07, quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If a disagreement occurs, then there was not enough information provided
to allow the public to agree.
What if someone is simply recalcitrant and maintains that Peter
Abelard is always an eligible voter if no list of eligible voters is
provided? He
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1651
== CFJ 1651 ==
if a R107 notice initiating an Agoran decision does not contain
an explicit list of the eligible voters, and there is later a
di
12 matches
Mail list logo
