2008/7/23 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm also treating /this/ as insufficiently clear as to initiate a case.
>
>
Give me an actual reason for it to fail apart from an offhand note.
2008/7/23 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>5657 O1 1.5 comex enough already?
> AGAINST*11
Do you find this interesting?
Funny?
Exciting?
Good for Agora?
Stop it.
tusho
2008/7/23 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I intend, with 2 support, to make Proposal 5657 Democratic.
>
I offer my moral support.
2008/7/24 Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is "to chagne" a term of art I'm not aware of?
>
He copypasted the previous attempt.
Besides, you know that we have a rule to protect that kind of stuff.
tusho
2008/7/25 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There's a point. The point is, I'm greedy and want to win.
>
Yeah. That really makes me want to do things in your favour.
2008/7/25 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I intend with the majority consent of the Dons to transfer chits from
> the Protection Racket to the Dons as follows:
>
> tusho - 100 Chits
> Wooble - 100 Chits
> BobTHJ - 100 Chits
>
> BobTHJ
>
I consent.
2008/7/25 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 5657 O1 1.5 comex enough already?
> FORx5
>
note - it's democratic
2008/7/25 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I object. Players joining the Vote Market for the first time are
> automatically in violation with this.
>
Bullcrap. They don't HAVE a quantity of VP.
2008/7/25 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> #! /usr/bin/perl6
Perl 6?
> Use Agora.pm;
> Use Agora/ROoA.pm;
Invalid syntax in either 5 or 6
> IF (milling 4 * 8 produces an X crop) == TRUE # otherwise refigure the
> modulo 11 multiplication
Not even Perl any more.
> {
> I mill 4 * 8 into an X
2008/7/25 Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Such language!
Sorry. Was agitated IRL when typing.
> A player joining will have zero VP. Not undefined, zero.
I disagree. They're not bound by the contract defining VP.
tusho
2008/7/25 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I understand Larry Wall upgraded... and I forgot the -wT flags.
Perl 6 is semi-vaporware atm.
>>> Use Agora.pm;
>>> Use Agora/ROoA.pm;
>>
>> Invalid syntax in either 5 or 6
>
> Does Perl not need the ; after a Use line?
It's "use", and you omit t
On 26/07/2008, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I disagree. They're not bound by the contract defining VP.
>
> But once they join, they are bound by it, and their holdings are
> defined at that point.
Once they join - so they'll have had it for 0 days.
> How about adding a provision
2008/7/26 Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Googlebot isn't a person, so in that case, we must analyze a step
> backwards to determine who is most directly responsible for sending
> the message. Some candidates: the person who setup the state for the
> script last or whoever is most responsible
2008/7/26 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Irrelevant. You can possess a contract-defined asset without
> belonging to that contract (I possess some chits, for instance).
>
>
Ah, true.
This means that contracts can affect non-parties.
Creepy...
2008/7/26 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In 2082, ehird's threat merits a strong response from Agora. I am strongly
> considering exile.
Oh yeah?? Well I'll exile YOU!
2008/7/26 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You can't do that; I recall filing charges against you for roughing the
> passer, offsides, and related technicalities such as treason.
> -
> Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
> OscarMeyr
>
Mornington Crescent.
2008/7/26 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> CoE: syntax error.
>
So we've discussed.
2008/7/28 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> http://dotnomic.wikidot.com/
>
> I don't personally have time to keep up with any forum-based nomics,
> but I recommend that H. Ambassador BobTHJ recognize it per Rule 2185.
>
>From their website:
> I just saw mention of DotNomic in Agora's discussion lis
2008/7/28 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Aha, I only have 2.2 (Zenith is still running RH9, and I still haven't
> gotten around to buying its successor).
>
>
You can run it on rutian. :P
Note that the expression evaluates to the string '\x03', but I guess maybe,
since it's a single character, w
2008/7/28 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It was a deliberately false statement, and that *does* violate the rules.
>
> -zefram
>
You and I *both* know that we disagree strongly on this point.
2008/7/28 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What's that?
>
>
eso-std.org's server, so named when we (me and ais523) were bashing
randomly-typed names off our keyboards over IRC, and we liked that one.
After a quick google, turned out it's a species in both Star Trek *and* Star
Wars.
Which was all
2008/7/28 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Changes to the parties in a public contract take effect when they're
> published; eir leaving the contract was published before you joined
> it.
>
No it wasn't.
I can provide logs.
2008/7/28 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Logged or not, your IRC channel isn't a Public Forum.
>
And you don't have to agree to contracts in a Public Forum.
2008/7/29 Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 5657 O1 1.5 comex enough already?
> FORx13
Democratic. Unfortunately this is one case I'd appreciate your
high voting power ;)
tusho
2008/7/29 Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> - woggle
>
Good thing this fails.
2008/7/30 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Proposal: Official synonyms
> (AI = 1.7, please)
>
> Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing
> "UNIMPUGNED" with "UNIMPUGNED (syn. DIDN'T BREAK A RULE)",
> and by replacing
> "INNOCENT" with "INNOCENT (syn. DIDN'T DO IT)".
>
> [People keep getting
2008/7/30 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I retract my previous proposal "Official synonyms".
>
> Proposal: Unification
> (AI = 1.7, please)
>
> Quazie and tusho are co-authors of this proposal.
>
> Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing the descriptions of
> UNIMPUGNED and INNOCENT with t
> (Oh, and you can register now.)
>
And anyone could deregister me.
2008/7/30 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 5670 D1 2Murphy But what is truth?
NOTE: This proposal DOES NOT WORK. The rule in question
has been repealed.
2008/7/30 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> A conversation with tusho on IRC seems to imply, but doesn't prove,
> that e might have found a way to scam the new Caste system or whatever
> it's called, asking me if "30 votes" would be worth a lot to me..
> Also, I mentioned that I might be warning Agora, a
2008/8/1 Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I register with the name arkestra. If this fails, I ask if there is an
> active player who would explain why, and how I may correctly register.
It fails because you were already registered.
2008/8/2 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments:
>
> Agoran precedent has established (and ensared me) that a non-player
> could violate R2149, and that a failed action can violate R2149. I
> have to
2008/8/2 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The rule didn't say you couldn't lie. It was a statement that you
> shouldn't have believed was true.
>
Speech acts do not have truth values!
2008/8/2 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Statements have truth values. You made a statement.
>
"I register" has no truth value.
2008/8/2 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It's true if and only if you register. It's a statement with a single
> unambiguous subject and predicate and no self-contradictions. It's
> not too hard to determine that it has a truth value.
>
I'm afraid quite a few players disagree with you here
2008/8/3 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> My arguments: UNIMPUGNED is appropriate. Merely not ascending is
> permissible, as long as I do ascend in a reasonable amount of time.
>
> --Ivan Hope CXXVII
>
I don't see anything in the rules about this.
2008/8/4 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> CoE: I didn't call this, I think it was comex who did.
> --
> ais523
>
ihope.
2008/8/4 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill,
> Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill.
>
> (cf. CFJ 2081).
Case was appealed.
2008/8/5 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Evidence: In the game in question, I have fatally died, meaning it is
> now impossible for me to ascend. Therefore, I would be GUILTY, if this
> were a criminal case rather than an equity case.
As opposed to non-fatal death?
2008/8/6 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why?
>
>
Paradox possibility, presumably.
2008/8/6 Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:30, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > In an equity case, this sort of word-twisting is not appropriate, if
>> > the Nethack sense
2008/8/8 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sgeo's statement was: "I lie." This statement is a self-contradictory
> statement; evaluating it as true makes it false, and vice versa. Therefore,
> the truth value of this statement, and hence whether the Defendant lied, is
> indeterminate. Acc
2008/8/8 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You are correct, UNDECIDABLE is the obvious ruling. Too bad this was
> submitted as a criminal CFJ, not an inquiry case.
> -
> Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
> OscarMeyr
>
Oh.
Er.
tusho
2008/8/8 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hmmso which was received first, this or my Water Rights enforcement?
>
> BobTHJ
>
comex's.
tusho
test
2008/8/10 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But all the judgements in R591 base their appropriateness of the
> statement's truth at the time the case was initiated.
>
>
Ugh. Momentarily forgot.
OK. I won't retract my other CFJ, as it's more clear.
tusho
2008/8/11 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Assessor and Rulekeepor might not be so bad, now I've finally gotten
> around to wrapping my head around Subversion. Unfortunately, my server
> is too old to support the server end. Due to Rule 1450, someone else
> will need to serve as Promotor.
You ca
2008/8/11 The PerlNomic Partnership <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic
> Partnership (a public contract).
>
> The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
> number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each
> ord
2008/8/13 Chester Mealer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I resume being cdm014. If the previous statement was not a possible action,
> I register or reregister under the name cdm014 choosing the action which
> best communicates that I was previously an active player called cdm014 and
> wish to be so again.
2008/8/13 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I believe it's 754(1) that grants them meaning, since those words have
> no ordinary-language meaning. I'd say they represent either a
> difference in spelling or dialect, depending on your view of whether a
> language variation with a tiny number of
2008/8/14 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Not sure I agree. UNAWARE isn't appropriate for claiming ignorance in
> all cases, in fact in many cases it's not appropriate; there was
> sufficient goings on that e was aware that e could be punished (when one
> wants to demonstrate an unjust law, on
2008/8/15 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the
> holder of the Promotor office.
>
> The eligible voters are the active players, and the vote collector is the
> IADOP.
>
> The valid options are:
> * PerlNomic Partnership
> * comex
>
2008/8/15 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 23:07 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> How can you NOT vote PNP with this?:
>>
>> http://nomic.info/perlnomic/current-proposals/proposal.ais523.code_for_being_the_Agoran_Promotor
> Heh, my email system eve
2008/8/15 The PerlNomic Partnership <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This distribution of proposal 5673 initiates the Agoran
> Decisions on whether to adopt it. The eligible voters for ordinary
> proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic
> proposals are the active first-class play
2008/8/18 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ alleging that
> tusho violated Rule 2110 by failing to make a reasonable attempt to
> resolve the paradox by which e won as soon as possible after winning
> by paradox.
>
> --Wooble
>
I talked with
2008/8/18 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
>> If you have served as the contestmaster of a contest during the months
>> of June or July and have fulfilled all your obligations under that
>> contest please post (to a public forum) a statement that you have done
>> so, along with the
2008/8/19 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/8/19 Jamie Dallaire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Sorry. Neither works.
>>
>> "Any Human External Force who is not already a Player and *who has not been
>> a player in the current or previous nweek* can
2008/8/25 Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think I remember semi-recently someone attempted to abuse the
> ratification rules to make emself God-Emperor. I'm not convinced
> that "fix it with ratification" properly resolves the issue -- there
> may still be a harsh dichotomy between abusable pragat
2008/8/26 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Voting begins at Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:05:19 -0500. Discuss!
>
>
I have a semi-decent piece of evidence (which I won't reveal for
root's sake) that root is a villager.
2008/8/28 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The voting limit on a given decision is the voting limit at the start
> of the voting period.
>
Aren't votes resolved (and invalid ones not counted) at assesment time?
Did that change with this new-fangled stuff?
2008/8/28 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is a Win Announcement. ais523 has satisfied the winning condition
> of High Score as eir present score is 112.
>
> BobTHJ
>
Haha, he was planning that but I bet he wasn't expecting this. >:)
2008/8/28 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:48 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 15:25 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> ais523 R BKW 4
>> CoE: I have more ribbons than this, which I CoEd on last time: I also
2008/8/29 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If nobody spots any further errors in the ruleset, I'll try to ratify
> next week's SLR.
>
Well, I grepped for 'comex' and it isn't in there. So you're not trying
an obvious scam, at least.
2008/8/29 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Trivially FALSE. A player can join one but not the other.
Err, you mean trivially true.
Think I might have mail problems. This still up?
2008/9/3 Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> We really should define contracts to require that they at least
> potentially place obligations on people. In RL contract law, this
> thing wouldn't be a contract.
Well, I think it's a useful "I assert that this is true".
2008/9/3 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As a matter of fact, I don't think violating AAA paragraph 15 is
> prop-worthy. I transfer one prop from myself (because the situation
> ihope anticipated isn't occurring; effectively, from tusho because e
> is spamming CFJs) to H. CotC Murphy (because tus
2008/9/3 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So:
>
> I initiate an equity case with respect to the AAA. The state of
> affairs by which events have not proceeded as envisioned by the
> contract is that tusho has violated section 15 of the AAA agreement:
>
> 15. Creating proposals or CFJs for the clear an
2008/9/3 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yes, you are.
>
> BobTHJ
>
Wtf. I explicitly didn't care about the AAA and didn't want part
in its shenanigans. If this was a criminal CFJ I imagine it'd be
UNAWARE.
2008/9/3 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> what? Since when am I an AAA party?
>
> Here it is:
Psht. Why on earth did I do that.
2008/9/5 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Proto: It Takes Two to Tango (AI=1.7)
>
> [ Generalizes the features of pledges to all contracts. Also adds a
> small amount of red tape to pledge creation, by requiring the
> participation of a second person who volunteers to enforce the
> pledge. ]
H
2008/9/5 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Proto: It Takes Two to Tango (AI=1.7)
>
> [ Generalizes the features of pledges to all contracts. Also adds a
> small amount of red tape to pledge creation, by requiring the
> participation of a second person who volunteers to enforce the
> pledge. ]
O
On 09/09/2008, Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Therefore, no matter which noun you replace, you get in effect the same
>> result. Michael for Monster!!! :)
>
> Err, woot!
>
> Michael - someone better tell me what my awesome monsterly powers are
You can deputize
On 10/09/2008, Dvorak Herring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I formally announce that I register under Rule 869.
>
> --
> Dvorak Herring
>
Hi! What brings you here?
2008/9/10 Dvorak Herring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Been looking for something like this ever since summer camp, we had a
> similar "game". I've also seen alot of this Nomic around.
>
> --
> Dvorak Herring
>
A suggestion, since this trips up most people:
Most of the gameplay happens in contests/contr
2008/9/9 The PerlNomic Partnership <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 5693 D 1 2.0 Goethe Speaker's Choice
FOR
> 5694 D 1 2.0 rootMinistering the Speaker
AGAINST
> 5695 D 1 3.0 comex Undemocracy
PRESENT
2008/9/10 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) wrote:
>> I register myself for Agora using the nickname "Sir Toby".
>
> Hey, welcome back! -Goethe.
We've had quite an activity spurt recently. And B had one a few
weeks back.
A new era of nomic activity?
2008/9/16 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> No longer necessary, as CFJ 2107 is done.
>
> --Ivan Hope CXXVII
>
And? I would still like an answer.
2008/9/16 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It is sometimes appropriate.
>
> --Ivan Hope CXXVII
>
Alright. So... why did you say it wasn't? :P
2008/9/16 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So the question is whether actions happen truly simultaneously (the
> actions are being done at the same time), in which case the statements
> would both be TRUE, or whether they can be separated in legal time, in
> which case both would be FALSE. I support t
2008/9/17 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> This I the a CFJ. statement: is on CFJ
>
> -Goethe
The messages you send are a template describing actions, these
actions all happen at the same time without ordering.
Imagine a programming language that runs all the program's statements
at the same
2008/9/18 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I CFJ on the following: Normish is a nomic. Arguments: Normish
> contains, is, or runs on a Linux server which contains a script
> allowing its users to alter the server's contents arbitrarily.
> Treating this as a nomic ruleset, this makes Normish a nomic.
A
2008/9/20 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I judge 2154 TRUE and 2155 FALSE.
>
Proto: The CotC can refuse any CFJ regarding rule 104 or the First Speaker.
2008/9/20 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Quite possibly that would violate R101.
> --
> ais523
>
If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing
2008/9/21 Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Do I have to do anything now to take care of crimes I committed back then?
To the best of my knowledge, you are a free man.
2008/9/21 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Accordingly, a ruling of GUILTY is appropriate. I am uncertain whether an
> apology or a fine is appropriate. I'm leaning towards a proto-ruling of
> fine, and willing to drop it back to apology if the October prerogatives are
> assigned before I
2008/9/21 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Please elaborate on how the technical issue makes Discharge appropriate. E
> had *some* way of communicating with the Agoran community, as shown in the
> evidence.
Timezones made that very difficult, and besides, even if e gave me the
perogative
a
2008/9/21 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> E could have agreed to a contract allowing you to publish a message
> on eir behalf for this purpose.
>
>
OK, true. But I seriously believe that getting his email working again would
be a bigger priority - if I had that problem I wouldn't think of that.
2008/9/23 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> CoE: You are not necessarily a person.
A biological entity able of communicating in English via email?
Yeah, e's a person.
2008/9/23 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> How do you know biological?
>
> For all you know invalid invalid is set up like PerlNomic, its emails
> are composed by a committee, and its emails are actually sent by
> Googlebot.
Still, your CoE doesn't prove anything and has no basis either...
(probably
2008/9/23 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> I intend, with two support, to initiate a criminal CFJ against tusho, alleging
> that e broke R1504 by failing to Apologize asap after eir CFJ 2082 conviction
> was affirmed. -Goethe
>
>
>
>
Sorry, I forgot. Hope my apology can count as an apology
2008/9/23 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I support.
>
Fails, e retracted it.
2008/9/24 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But the name of the header explicitly labels the accompanying text as
> an Agora game action.
>
Precedent is that only message bodies are in-game.
2008/9/24 Phil Lister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> okay, I can't login to the a-b archives with [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> i'm not receiving anything from the lists.
>
> What happen
>
> --
> Phill
>
... but I received this.
Anyway, my messages got through, but only on phill, not this one :|
Kind of antic
On 24 Sep 2008, at 14:20, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I don't think we owe it to tusho to give em what e wants by holding
off on criminal CFJs, or giving em any deference at all. Since he
first came across Agora, e's constantly shown a blatant disregard for
the rules, and unlike many other scamsters
On 24 Sep 2008, at 14:07, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Fails. The Promotor is only required to distribute proposals that
have been in the pool since the beginning of the week.
The Monster doesn't have to wait for an officer to
On 24 Sep 2008, at 15:53, Roger Hicks wrote:
I also support, but agree with Murphy regarding a lessened sentence.
BobTHJ
It's also worth pointing out that I am possibly not a player...
(which is
why I suggested holding off the criminal CFJs, I wasn't trying to buy
time
or something.)
On 24 Sep 2008, at 17:37, Ian Kelly wrote:
Which of these was the claim of identity:
Phill
Phill, a biological organism capable of communicating by email in
English
and therefore a first-class person (rule 2150)
Phill, a biological organism capable of communicating by email in
Englis
On 24 Sep 2008, at 18:07, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Phill is a person, no ratification necessary, unless you're
claiming
that either you're not Phill or you're
On 24 Sep 2008, at 18:23, Taral wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Phil Lister
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
okay, I can't login to the a-b archives with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and
i'm not receiving anything from the lists.
Are you still subscribed?
Yah. 'Sall working now.
301 - 400 of 1799 matches
Mail list logo
