On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 13:27 -0400, comex wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> And finally, the hypocrisy of partnerships is revealed here.
>>
>> Says one of the original partners of the Pineapple Partnership.
It was useful fo
2009/3/31 comex :
> But now that the PNP's out of office, maybe it finally is time for the
> sunset of partnerships.
>
RIP Bayes killed by one of its parents
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 13:27 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > And finally, the hypocrisy of partnerships is revealed here.
>
> Says one of the original partners of the Pineapple Partnership.
>
> But now that the PNP's out of office, maybe it finally i
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> And finally, the hypocrisy of partnerships is revealed here.
Says one of the original partners of the Pineapple Partnership.
But now that the PNP's out of office, maybe it finally is time for the
sunset of partnerships.
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Taral wrote:
>> Did I miss something or do these arguments make no sense in a 1742
>> case against comex?
And finally, the hypocrisy of partnerships is revealed here. Proponents
claim that partnerships can't have intents, but
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Taral wrote:
> Did I miss something or do these arguments make no sense in a 1742
> case against comex?
I only violated the contract if the PNP violated Rule 2215 by stating
that the proposal pool was empty. (For the record, I forgot about
that statement, though
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> = Criminal Case 2435 =
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> I suggest that the judge of that case apply the standard punishment, but
> (per rule 2145) apply it to comex, rather than to the partnership as a
7 matches
Mail list logo
