Ed Murphy wrote:
>I thought the point of pikhq's attempted scam is that the actual
>definition of "dependent contract" didn't get adopted properly,
Yes.
>hence eir contracts can qualify by public claim.
The point of root's judgement is that they can't, even in this
definitional vacuum. We've hi
root wrote:
I find that pikhq succeeded in creating several contracts that e deems
to be dependent, but not in creating any contracts that are dependent
as required by Rule 2136. I therefore find CFJ 1816 FALSE; it follows
trivially that CFJ 1817 is FALSE as well.
I thought the point of pikhq
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Actually, by this reasoning, CFJ 1816 should be TRUE (the fact that
>the rules do not use the Dependency contract's definition of
>"dependent contracts" does not make it any less a definition), but CFJ
>1817 is still FALSE.
Mm. I think the statement of CFJ 1816 is too vague to b
On Dec 3, 2007 11:16 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2007 5:45 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby, in linked fashion, assign root as judge of CFJs 1816-1817.
> >
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1816
> >
> > =
On Dec 3, 2007 5:45 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby, in linked fashion, assign root as judge of CFJs 1816-1817.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1816
>
> == CFJ 1816 ==
>
> Type:
5 matches
Mail list logo
