On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>> The rules define public as the state of a publicity switch, and by R754(2)
>> this overrides any other definition of public.
> Actually, they define Public as a state of a switch. However, does this
> necessarily override all other use
Goethe wrote:
> The rules define public as the state of a publicity switch, and by R754(2)
> this overrides any other definition of public.
Actually, they define Public as a state of a switch. However, does this
necessarily override all other uses of "public" in the rules? If it does,
then there
ais523 wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>> I initiate a criminal CFJ, naming ehird as the defendant, alleging
>> that e violated rule 2149 by posting the above-quoted statement while
>> not believing it to be true.
> ais523 wrote:
>> I initiate a criminal CFJ against ehird for violating rule 2149 by
>> know
comex wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Elliott Hird
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> comex posted the message in question.
>> I initiate a criminal CFJ, naming ehird as the defendant, alleging
>> that e violate
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
> However, the fact that my forum would be an exceptionally poor choice
> for a Nomic (all messages are anonymous and can be set to expire) is
> not relevant to whether or not it is a public forum.
When did these tests get so trivial?
The rules define public
2008/6/20 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Evidence:
> I just lied in a cfj invocation for lying
> awesome
>
Counter-evidence: I was lying for humorous effect. I said this almost
immediately after. This is grossly out of context.
ehird
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> comex posted the message in question.
>
> I initiate a criminal CFJ, naming ehird as the defendant, alleging
> that e violated rule 2149 by post
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex posted the message in question.
I initiate a criminal CFJ, naming ehird as the defendant, alleging
that e violated rule 2149 by posting the above-quoted statement while
not believing it to be true.
--Wooble
2008/6/20 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> FWIW, I did not actually post that message.
>
I suspect you are lying.
ehird
9 matches
Mail list logo
