2008/5/9 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Agora is being INVADED by FOREIGNERS from IRCNomic, our rebellious
> once-protectorate! In fact, a rule was proposed to declare war on us!
> Among that game's ranks are ais523 and ehird, who certainly are
> scamsters born and bred... we must defend ourselves!
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm not surprised. comex also proposed the B Nomic proposal to
> declare war on Agora.
>
> -root
>
Of course, rubbish has many uses as well - especially if it can be recycled.
ehird
2008/5/9 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The Rebuttal of the Rebuttal:
>>
>> I should not be found GUILTY because my religion -
>> Agoracontractian - requires me to make t
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> To be a pledge, it must identify itself as such, which it does not.
It does. I did not claim at any point that I was posting the whole contract -
I merely posted a brief explanation and its commandments.
> If it were in fact a contract, it would have beco
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Breaking the rules is breaking the rules. You can do what you want,
> but if you don't follow the rules, then you're not playing Agora.
It would seem that EXCUSED provides an avenue for breaking the
rules, if the alternative is "at least as serious as tha
008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You left out a rather important part of the EXCUSED clause:
>
> * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably
>avoid _breaching_ the _rules_ in a manner at least as serious as
>that alleged
>
> (Emphasis added.) Violating
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> From an Agoran standpoint, yes.
>
> -root
>
But my Religion is a private contract -- it obligated me
to post the Ducks & Platypuses contract, and it obligates
me to not propose, and oppose any such proposal, of a
change to the Ducks & Platypuses contract.
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Does it also define what the Ducks & Platypuses contract must be?
Yes.
ehird
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Then the Religion contract would inevitably force you to breach one
> contract or the other, and so you should not have agreed to it in the
> first place. Had you not, the rules breach would have been avoided.
My metareligion - Metagoracontractian - requi
My previous message had typos. Here is a revised version.
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Then the Religion contract would inevitably force you to breach one
> contract or the other, and so you should not have agreed to it in the
> first place. Had you not, the rules breach would have
2008/5/9 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The Metagoracontractian Metareligion:
>>
>> This religion is a private contract, and a pledge. It has two commandments,
>
> I agree.
>
>
2008/5/9 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Please agree to the typo-fixed version instead.
>
> ehird
>
Actually, don't: that's not actually the metareligion, just an excerpt
(Like before).
ehird
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Then you shouldn't have joined that one either. You realize the chain
> can't recur infinitely, because the base state is not to be a member
> of any contract, so you must have joined these contracts at some point
> in the material past.
>
> -root
>
Actua
2008/5/9 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You still must have joined the infinite chain (or at least one
> contract thereof) in said finite past.
>
> pavitra
>
One of the meta-religions along the chain specifies that I have
been in existence for an infinite amount of time. So no, maybe not
in sai
2008/5/10 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The issue is not whether you have been in existence forever, but
> whether you have been a member of the chain forever. Let's assume you
> have always been bound by the conditions, even before the
> meta-...-religions became Agoran contracts, even before
2008/5/10 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Quoted for great justice. At the time the contract in question was
> joined (by each of its parties), there was no way for any party to
> avoid violating it. Everyone involved knew exactly what they were
> getting into.
>
> Pavitra.
>
However, there was
2008/5/10 Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As a former IRCNomician, I SUPPORT. Let the fun begin.
'Former' is questionable, as you are in #ircnomic and have not opted out.
ehird
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Does IRCNomic actually have enough players to successfully invade Agora?
>
> -root
>
s/IRCNomic/Canada/
And no. No it does not.
ehird
2008/5/11 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You should make Pancake a contract in Canada too.
> --
> ais523
'Tis. He agreed to it. The fact that it isn't listed anywhere has no effect.
ehird
2008/5/12 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> WORDS
>
> Message referred to in quoted message [excerpt]:
> > This religion is a private contract, and a pledge. It has two commandments,
> > given by God at the beginning of time. These commandments MUST be
> > obeyed by its members. I am the only
2008/5/12 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On the contrary, the stipulation you're referring to, "I am the only
> member of this religion", does not imply "I am the only party to this
> religion". A party and a member are not the same thing. The sentence
> "These commandments MUST be obeyed by its
2008/5/12 Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 5/12/08, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If it's a serious problem to the rest of you I may have to come up with a
> > ridiculous solution to it, like a line-wrap script in JavaScript which runs
> > from public computers...
>
> No gmail
2008/5/13 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> When no definition or distinction is explicitly made in the text
It is. Read the contract.
> , it is most reasonable to assume that member=party. Otherwise we'd have to
> go back through all past contracts to see which terms were used,
> which doesn'
2008/5/13 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Oh, clarification: I was basing it not on the actual private contract, but
> on what ihope read, which was all he had in front of em so all e could agree
> (or not) to. In that text, there was no distinction made.
>
> -Goethe
OK, this makes sense.
2008/5/13 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> -zefram
winmail.dat is some kind of pre-mime thingy. Outlook, which ais523 has
stated his reasons for using, puts it there.
And personally I think that top-posting with the full post is alright
if it's short. It can be a helpful memory-jogger.
ehird
2008/5/14 Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> It's clear that R2186 regulates winning the game in general if it at
>> all possible for any rule to do so. It plainly satisfies R2151(b)'s
>> criteria "the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied,
>> then some player is permitted
2008/5/14 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> From my previous message:
>
> {
> Rule 2186/0 states "This is the only way to win the game, rules to the
> contrary notwithstanding." However, rule 2186/0, being less powerful
> than rule 101, cannot take precedence o
2008/5/14 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I cause ehird to lose. Causing another player to lose is not
> regulated, thus by 101(ii) I'm allowed to do it by announcement.
>
I define losing to mean "a chicken".
ehird
2008/5/15 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There having been no other nominations during the nomination period
> for this office, I hereby install ais512 as Mad Scientist.
>
> -IADoP Wooble
>
What/who is ais512?
ehird
2008/5/16 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Wait. What?
>
>
I'm sure this is a very interesting thread but I refuse to read it.
ehird
Dear (fellow) Agorans,
How do you view a vote of PRESENT regarding a proposal you
made? Do view it as a kind of "wimpy FOR", or do you take it as
a sort of "well, I oppose this, but not enough for AGAINST"?
Other opinions are welcome, but "I view it as PRESENT" is not. :P
ehird
2008/5/22 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> blah
Re the replies: I wasn't really asking what it actually _does_, or the
opinion it was made to represent, but the kind of _mood_ it inspires
if you see it on your proposal. That is, do you see it as helpful or a
hinderance?
ehird
2008/5/22 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Fixed now.
>
What was wrong?
ehird
2008/5/23 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hmmanyone interested?
>
> BobTHJ
>
I agree to the Points Relay Service contract.
ehird
2008/5/29 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> B Nomic attempted to send Agora a mildly offensive message yesterday to a-b,
> but failed. (I won't link to it because then I might inadvertently accomplish
> what they were trying to do for them; I only noticed myself because I was
> reading thro
2008/5/29 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think they changed their mind. Hmm... you're a B Nomicer, aren't you? Are
> you trying to take this opportunity to fix B Nomic's epic mistake?
> --
> ais523
>
They did change their mind, I meant 'were going to send in the past'.
They dismissed
it
2008/5/29 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Wooble wrote:
>> I nominate Offhanded, ehird, and ais523 as Notary.
> I consent.
> --
> ais523
>
I turtle.
Does this involve me doing much work?
ehird
2008/5/30 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I wonder if outright plagiarism like this could be in violation of
> R2149 with respect to truthfulness in claim of authorship?
>
> -root
>
Does ais523's consent count?
ehird
2008/5/30 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Doubtful. R2149 doesn't offer exemptions just because another player
> gave you permission.
>
> -root
>
I never claimed I authored that cfj anyway
ehird
2008/5/30 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Wow, an almost exact copy-paste of my attempt to win by paradox, even
> down to copying the same argument with the names changed.
I must point out that we were talking over IRC when you said that I could do it.
ehird
2008/5/30 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Perhaps not explicitly, but you never disclaimed authorship either,
> and the message has a From: header with your name on it. What would
> be the inference of a person unfamiliar with the prior CFJ?
>
> -root
>
OK, there may be confusion, but it was uni
2008/5/28 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Has anybody else noticed that of the 18 current first-class players,
> all but 4 are listed at gmail addresses? Apparently, we've been
> invaded by Google Nomic.
>
> -root
>
Sometime in the near maybe-not-so-near maybe-in-a-while maybe-never future,
I mi
2008/6/7 Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> SHALL NOT and CANNOT conflict. Something is either illegal (possible
> but punishable) or impossible. Pick one.
If I may, I propose CANNOT.
ehird
2008/6/7 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, first we'd have to bring sane proposals back, since it just
> wouldn't be the same without the play on words. But the way sane
> proposals worked back then is pretty much exactly the way regular
> democratic proposals work now. So I think we're stuc
2008/6/7 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I missed a piece of the web-based "record decision" form. It's since
> been fixed. As has the single-quote bug; PHP is apparently escaping
> quotes on its own, but not how PostgreSQL wants, so I'm doing
> pg_escape_string(ereg_replace("\\\'", "'", $s))
>
2008/6/7 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I missed a piece of the web-based "record decision" form. It's since
>> been fixed. As has the single-quote bug; PHP is apparently escaping
>> quotes on its own, but not how PostgreSQL w
2008/6/8 Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Could someone explain this to me? I vaguely recall something about a
> former rule that made discussion of voting on these things illegal,
> but that rule no longer exists, right?
>
> avpx
Insane proposal: proposal ALL IN UPPERCASE
You couldn't talk
2008/6/8 Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Since I've been thinking a lot about proposals I could submit that
> might benefit Agora, I decided I'd throw an idea out there for you
> guys to give me feedback.
>
> My idea is an official currency, the Napier, abbreviated Np, which is
> the base-10
2008/6/11 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
>> 5546 D0 2ais523 Monstrous Decrees
>
> COE: You missed my proposal "Empower the Notary" (though to be fair I
> sent it to A-B, and it may
2008/6/11 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The ID number should be secret too, and should be assigned after those
> given to the other proposals in the same batch, so only the Promoter
> knows just how many Insaner proposals are being voted on until the
> next batch is sent out.
>
This would
2008/6/11 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Perhaps we should try Insaner proposals: all of the above, plus the
> proposal's title, text, author and AI are secret as well.
>
> -root
>
Very yes.
ehird
2008/6/11 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Unless there's some way to double-blind it, that's a lot of power for
> the assessor (assessor conspirator is what scammed it previously).
> -Goethe
A double blind proposal system both makes no sense at all and sounds
totally awesome.
ehird
2008/6/12 Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why would we set 1 Np = 10^0 of the base unit? What exactly does that achieve?
>
> I like your other idea, though. But I'm waiting for feedback on my
> colors idea :-\
>
> avpx
>
It achives P=NP.
ehird
2008/6/12 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Can we just stick to contested proposals plz?
>
>
No. :-P
ehird
2008/6/12 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Compromise on SHA-1?
>
Probably.
Or... SHA-512. It's no harder to implement than SHA-1 (mostly), it is
a lot slower, but meh.
Note that 2ch BBSs get quite well with a short substring of a crypt()
call! Though, they can be cracked in about a week. Their defe
Didn't I tell you to vote FORx7 my proposal?
Have you? I haven't noticed it.
ehird
2008/6/12 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ah.
>
> Is MD5 really that easy to brute-force? hmm...
>
> How about if each ballot also includes a proof-of-work? This should
> make searching for collisions harder.
>
> That is, instead of random noise as your salt, include the MD5 hash
> of a string be
2008/6/13 Matt Berman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I would like to be registered as a player in agora.
> I would also like to use this name: Schrodinger's Cat.
>
> -- Schrodinger's Cat
>
I wish to join etc. are defined, but is 'I would like to be registered'?
ehird
2008/6/13 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It's the same sentiment, isn't it?
>
> -root
>
Yes. And?
(I know Schrodinger's Cat from an IRC channel, so this isn't newbie
bashing: I'm interested)
ehird
2008/6/13 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I rather doubt that can be "reasonably determined...from information
> published within the voting period."
>
> -root
>
I disagree.
ehird
On 13/06/2008, Matt Berman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Elliott Hird <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I initiate an inquiry CFJ on the statement: {Schrodinger's Cat is a
>> player.}
>>
>> Arguments and counter-ar
2008/6/13 Schrodinger's Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> According to Rule 869:
> A person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by
> announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests
> registration, or requests permission to register.
>
> As I currently understand it, po
2008/6/13 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I propose the following proposal (AI=3, II=2):
>
> Create a power-3 rule with the following text:
> {{{
> All attempts to perform an action by announcement fail if
> the action is not unambiguously specified. This rule takes
> precedence over al
2008/6/13 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If it's true now, then it must have been true then for the same message.
>
> -root
>
So if someone will vote V on a proposal P some time in the future,
they have _always_ voted V on P?
ehird
2008/6/13 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Are you familiar with CFJ 1774?
>
> -root
>
Yes, but I didn't say that.
ehird
2008/6/14 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I make everything that has ever been a rule but has never been an
> asset a Monster-related case that requires a Monster. I regulate all
> actions.
>
> --Ivan Hope CXXVII
>
CONTRACT VIOLATER.
ehird
2008/6/14 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ihope wrote:
>>This contract purports to regulate becoming a party to
>>it.
>
> No it doesn't. It *purports* to purport to regulate it, but doesn't
> actually purport to regulate it.
>
> -zefram
>
Oh well, I don't really care about that part.
ehird
2008/6/14 Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This has interesting implications; one cannot leave, for that is an
> action. And inaction is still "doing nothing," which is itself an
> action. So really, if you join this contract, you cannot *help* but
> break the terms of it.
>
> avpx
>
Is 'not
2008/6/14 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You already did, by the way, in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
Yeah, I wasn't sure if that actually worked though.
2008/6/15 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, this is not what I'm used to. I thought roleclaiming and public
> voting (which entails bandwagons) were nice aspects of the game.
>
> /me shrugs
>
> --Ivan Hope CXXVII
>
Ditto, add these and I'll play.
ehird
2008/6/15 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This sort of thing was already shot down by CFJs 1260-61 (basically a
> refusal to attempt distinguishing intentional from accidental typos,
> no matter how clear-cut it seems).
>
> Assuming you don't actually object to the change at a conceptual level,
>
2008/6/16 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 5547 D1 2ais523
> FOR
>
>> 5548 D1 3Murphy Chronological order
> FOR
>
>> 5549 D1 2Wooble Earning Interest
> FOR
>
>> 5550 O1 1Ivan Hope Tongue-tied
> AGAINST * 3, FOR * 1
>
>> 5551 O1 1BobTHJ Empo
Did you ever vote FORx7 AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA?
If not, I initiate a criminal CFJ against you, for, uh, not doing so. Yeah.
ehird
2008/6/16 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You could, you know, read the voting results and find out.
>
> -root
>
WHAT A RIDICULOUS IDEA.
ehird
2008/6/16 David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> sounds like warfare -- the on-going feudal eugenics program -- take
> the idiots to battle and bump them off with full honor. Anyone read
> http://www.amazon.com/WORLD-WAR-II-INFANTRY-SOLDIER/dp/B000LZG698
> by W. Y. Boyd? There are several scenes of a
2008/6/16 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is your first post, right?
>
> I can't see anything else by you in the logs.
>
> If so, do you know what Agora Nomic is? This isn't a general discussion list.
>
> ehird
>
Extra notes:
no, not his first
2008/6/16 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> E's a former player, by the nickname of Crito. And there's nothing
> wrong with the occasional digression.
>
> -root
>
Ah, OK then. I apologise.
ehird
2008/6/16 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Award Elder Lurker to both Michawl Norrish and David Nichol
>
MICHAWL NORRISH
ehird
2008/6/16 Chester Mealer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On the business thread I noticed there was some talk of harvesting and crops
> and what not. I saw no rules for such in the SLR and as a potential player
> I'm interested in learning where I can find out more?
>
> It is possible they are referring t
2008/6/16 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yes, there are no "secret" rules or anything like that.
>
> -root
>
private contracts
ehird
2008/6/17 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I CFJ on the following statement: If ehrid was able to act on my
> behalf at the time CFJ 1999 and CFJ 2000 were called one or more of
> the set of {CFJ 1999, CFJ 2000} would've been TRUE.
>
> The more interesting question behind these CFJs is what ehrid's
>
2008/6/17 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The following sentence is a win announcement, as defined in Rule
> 2186, and this sentence serves to explicitly label it as one.
>
> The Call for Judgement with ID number 1980 is a tortoise, and has
> continuously been a tortoise for no greater than
2008/6/18 Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hmm. . . First off, this rule takes precedence over all other rules, so it
> would have to have higher power than all others.
No, power 3 rules don't work like that.
Well, the town fountain rules over it I guess.
> I do like the idea of a failsafe
2008/6/18 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What game did you play in person? I was introduced to the concept of
> Nomic in a similar way, through playing a game of dots (a nomicified
> version of the type of dots game you play where you make squares for
> points) at school.
>
A game of nomic, presum
2008/6/18 Chester Mealer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> the player who sends e-mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Murphy
2008/6/19 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As a judge, I personally wouldn't allow it without some proof that
> the URL contents were outside the technical domain of control of the
> sender (though a posted transcription might be a compromise if there
> was no debate on content and at least one w
2008/6/19 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ais523 wrote:
>> The following sentence is a win announcement, as defined in Rule
>> 2186, and this sentence serves to explicitly label it as one.
>
> ehird wrote:
>> The following sentence is a win announcement, as defined in Rule
>> 2186, and this
2008/6/19 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Other than possible auto-revocations, I'm not finding any new patent awards
> since February save BobTHJ being awarded MwoP in March. Anyone know of any
> others?
>
> -Goethe
Well, me and ais523 just won...
ehird
2008/6/20 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> FWIW, I did not actually post that message.
>
I suspect you are lying.
ehird
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
2008/6/21 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jun 20 10:55:48 I attempt to learn grammar and spelling. - Quazie
> Jun 20 10:55:56 hm
> Jun 20 10:55:58 that's to a-b
> Jun 20 10:56:03 so what if he doesn't? that's illegal?
> Jun 20 10:56:48 LOL - TIYAEOTISIDTIDFTHPAFALT
> Jun 20 10:57:49 ais523: by t
2008/6/22 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Good Idea: Making a Zombie out of an inactive player.
>
> Bad Idea: Making a Zombie out of an active player.
I agree but the other way around. :-P
ehird
2008/6/22 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Counter-blackmail: if I am replaced due to the above, then I'm not
> giving my successor access to the database update interface (especially
> since several parts still haven't been webified). This won't make eir
> job impossible (cf. Goethe, Zefram), bu
2008/6/23 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Oh, my... It really ought not to be possible to continually exploit
> the same paradox to get a win.
>
I guess woggle should be Plagiarist too.
ehird
2008/6/23 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Uh, thanks. I was pretty sure winning PerlNomic myself wasn't worth
> 2VP; I can't imagine that letting someone else win could be.
>
It was the only way I could express the deep love I have for you in my soul.
ehird
Has anyone got a copy of
http://greyfire.org/picture_library/agora.png? It's down.
Is this it: http://zenith.homelinux.net/awj/image/coat_of_arms.png?
ehird
2008/6/23 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Can I possibly talk you into retracting that?
>
>
This is where you switch to a language that does bignums ;)
ehird
2008/6/23 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Apart from proposals whose AI appears to be deliberately set
> high so they database can't handle them?
> --
> ais523
>
It's just a good thing that we all wouldn't stoop to that level.
ehird
http://eso-std.org/~ais523/notary-report
If you click that in a web browser, you'll get a nice HTML&CSS version
of the Notary
proto-report. (Why is ehird writing this? Well, I wrote the script
that converts the text
version.)
It'll make referencing parts of contracts and such a lot easier, as it
2008/6/24 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Be It So Ordered.
>
> -Goethe
>
This is the best judgement I've ever read.
ehird
1 - 100 of 1799 matches
Mail list logo
