is a person switch, known as Hat-Wearing; its valid values
> are Wearing
>and Not Wearing (default). It is tracked by the Department of
> Mental Health.
>A person may toggle their Hat-Wearing by announcement; this is
> "putting on"
>or "taking off" a hat.
>
> Upon adoption of this proposal, Murphy puts on a hat.
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
Gotcha. The nomic where I come from transmuted the 25-rule limit on mutable
rules, so we consider it bad to have rules of pure silliness.
On Dec 9, 2007 10:14 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 09 December 2007 20:11:35 Iammars wrote:
> > Maybe I'
rug.)
I'll probably have a proposal or two ready in a couple of days. I just have
to get used to the intricacies of playing by e-mail and the large ruleset
you already have.
On Dec 9, 2007 11:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Iammars wrote:
>
> > Gotcha. The nom
to agree to an
> > appropriately written binding agreement...
> >
> >
>
> Add on the ability to wager up to the amount of marks you have plus 100
> times
> the amount of VCs you have, and force VC->mark conversion.
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
Yeah, we realized that after we started.
On Dec 10, 2007 3:50 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/9/07, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > MTGS Nomic #1 on mtgsalvation.com. We just started recently with a
> modified
> > version of the Suber rulese
rgument requires a FALSE. I intend to appeal this judgement with
> two support, recommending a REMAND with the trivial task of matching
> judgement with argument. -Goethe
>
>
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
I agree.
On Dec 11, 2007 6:01 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2007, at 6:00 PM, Zefram wrote:
>
> > I hereby assign the judicial panel of Iammers, OscarMeyr, and root as
> > judge of CFJ 1831a.
> >
> With the agreement of H. Appeal
irst program is roughly 33% storage, 40% output, and the rest
> iteration/extraction. The second one is roughly 55% generation, 45%
> output.
>
> -root
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
ontestant.
> >
> > c) For each fantasy rule submitted by a contestant that was judged
> >unsuccessful during that week, 2+S points to that contestant.
> >
> > d) For each fantasy rule submitted by a contestant that was judged
> >invalid during that week, 1+S point to that contestant.
> >
>
> I join the above contest.
>
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
Well, would you look at that. When you reply to the business list it becomes
the discussion list!
/me totally knew that... <_< >_>
On Dec 11, 2007 8:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Iammars wrote:
>
> > I join the above contest.
>
> Nt
y
decide that they want stupid things like independence and life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness over important things like guaranteed trading
partners and amazing protection. Idiots.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Dec 11, 2007 9:47 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TTttPF
>
>
>
What's that for?
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
t; > Q: What is the most annoying thing in email?
>
> It's less annoying than quoting the entire message and then bottom-posting
> :D
Well, I just hit reply and start typing. Blame G-mail.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
party, unless I'm missing
something.
Also, I should have my votes up and what not. I plan on being more active
than I am now, I'm just not used to playing something by e-mail that's this
active, so all the e-mails are a little overwhelming.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
er a VC-to-Mark conversion, or
> require types of Marks that do not have VC equivalents, so VCs aren't the
> principal source of marks for spending).
>
> There is no proposal in this message, because I am suggesting a lot of
> rule
> text that does not currently exist, but I might come up with a proto when
> I can. Of course the other option is to repeal Marks. Thoughts?
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
at we have a better idea of how many will be in play. A more
> interesting idea might be to have 'levels' of mark earnings, so if you
> are at Level 2 you earn twice the rewards of someone else. Upgrading
> levels would probably require earning some marks.
>
> Levi
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
:
> > I remind the contestants of Brainfuck Golf that there are only 10
> > hours left to enter programs for this task. If you've got one, send
> > it in!
>
> Uh oh... I can't say I'll be able to fix my program before then. Well, I
> might. We'll see.
>
>
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
J 1844 and CFJ
1839, Vote on a lot of proposals, and come to a conclusion on the panel of
CFJ 1831b, and I'm a little over halfway through. My question is, since
we're on holiday, when is the first time I can legally post these things to
the public fora?
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
When you say concurring opinion, do you want an opinion on the original
statement or an opinion on why it should be appealed?
On Dec 25, 2007 7:54 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the agreement of my fellow H. Appeal Panelists Iammars and root,
> I intend to ha
>(Some or all of these votes may be too late to be valid.)
>
> Holidays don't extend voting periods. A quorum problem would, however.
>
> -zefram
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
Completely missed that. Meh. Back to working on the blog proposal.
On Jan 1, 2008 3:08 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2008 1:03 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Shouldn't that be a logical extension of the holiday period though? The
>
I SUPPORT each of these.
On Jan 2, 2008 3:53 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Further (forgot some questionable ones):
> I intend to deregister Fookiemyartug with Support.
> I intend to deregister Telescope with Support.
>
> -Goethe
>
>
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
ocument
> > might reasonably define would be included in the class of restrictions
> > over the general permission. Using Murphy's interpretation, however,
> > "modification" is necessary in allowing recordkeepors to create assets
> > in the possession of particular entities.
> >
> > Finally, because the sentence does allow for specialization of its
> > mechanism, we should strive to interpret it as precisely as possible.
> > Thus "An asset generally CAN be created by its recordkeepor by
> > announcement..." should be taken to mean exactly that, with no extra
> > qualifications.
> >
> > For all the reasons given above, I find CFJ 1850 to be FALSE.
> >
> > -root
> >
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
tly. I
> > > support this intent to appeal.
> >
> > If I understand Iammars' somewhat laconic arguments correctly, e is
> > pointing out that R2159 defines the only mechanism for initiating a
> > protective decree, and so a protective decree categoric
On Jan 7, 2008 9:25 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 07 January 2008 19:19:16 Iammars wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 2008 7:29 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Monday 07 January 2008 17:24:09 Ian Kelly wrote:
> >
On Jan 7, 2008 9:35 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 07 January 2008 19:30:58 Iammars wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 2008 9:25 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Monday 07 January 2008 19:19:16 Iammars wrote:
> > > >
On Jan 8, 2008 1:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I register on behalf of James (James registers).
>
>
>
I do not consent to this. (My name is James.)
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
ed being a player when he stopped being a person. However, thanks to
FACT 4, nothing happened to Human Point Two's Patent Title. Therefore, I
judge TRUE.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
being a patent title, it becomes something outside of
the rules, which I will call a not-actually-a-patent-title for reference.
When Human Point Two became a person again, the definition of a patent title
then applied to the not-actually-a-patent-title, so it became a patent title
again. Th
ike
> people are deregistering every day.
>
> BobTHJ
>
The question is: Could you tell the difference between an auto-assign and a
regular assign? Could you make the rules tell the difference?
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Jan 11, 2008 7:56 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I, for one, would rather wait for the CotC to do it right. The
> judicial system is not the place to experiment with automatic
> message generation.
>
>
This begs the question: Where is the right p
Just out of curiosity, would people be interested in a Rumble contest?
The rules to Rumble can be found here: http://kevan.org/rumble.cgi
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
replace the contestmasteras
permitted by the rules, with the contestmaster's consent.
17. This contract is a public contract by the rules of Agora.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
just its URL), so the "multiple votes
> -> FALSE that it was exactly one vote" interpretation is correct.
>
I agree to this.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Jan 14, 2008 1:36 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008 6:02 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because of FACT 3, Human Point Two stopped being a person, all of the
> > properties of Human Point Two tried to exist to whatever exten
Ah. I thought the question was being called because HP2 was made public.
Well then, that changes things. I'll have a new proto-judgement up later.
On Jan 14, 2008 1:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
> > On Jan
008 4:05 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby assign Iammars as judge of CFJ 1860.
> >
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1860
> >
>
> I post the following per the Vote Market agreement:
>
> Buy Ticket
> Action:
On Jan 14, 2008 6:28 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 4:24 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Uh, I'm not even in the Vote Market.
> >
> But this does not preclude you from becoming party to it to fill this
> Buy Ticke
Just out of curiosity, is it considered okay to mention the previous judges
arguments if you're the second judge on a case?
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Jan 15, 2008 12:02 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Iammars wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity, is it considered okay to mention the previous
> > judges arguments if you're the second judge on a case?
>
> Yes. There used to be a rule that you
s not a game, he cannot be a nomic either. Since he is
a nomic, proclaiming falsely that something is a protective decree to him is
not a violation of Rule 2159, therefore I judge FALSE.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Jan 15, 2008 10:24 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I nominate avpx for Mad Scientist.
>
> I nominate woggle for Tailor.
>
> I nominate Murphy for Conductor.
>
Aww. I want to be Mad Scientist.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Jan 15, 2008 10:34 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 January 2008 20:27:48 Iammars wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 2008 10:24 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I nominate avpx for Mad Scientist.
> > >
> >
On Jan 15, 2008 10:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Iammars wrote:
>
> > Since Steve Wallace is not a game, he cannot be a nomic either. Since he
> > is a nomic, proclaiming falsely that something is a protective decree to
> > him is not a violation o
On Jan 15, 2008 10:44 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 January 2008 20:42:40 Iammars wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 2008 10:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Iammars wrote:
> > > > Since Steve Wallace is not a
On Jan 15, 2008 10:51 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 10:42 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ah missed that conversation in my mailbox. Steve Wallace is c/o comex,
> > right?
>
> I am unrelated to the situation, besides being j
On Jan 16, 2008 5:51 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >this isn't a forum
>
> ... says Iammars in the discussion forum.
I meant a n online bulletin board.
>
>
> >
On Jan 16, 2008 1:22 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 January 2008 11:11:00 Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Goethe wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Zefram wrote:
> > >> Iammars wrote:
> > >>> The statement here b
Huh?
On Jan 16, 2008 10:37 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2008 10:13 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > T
> What is with these blatantly unwrapped proposals??
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Jan 16, 2008 11:49 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Iammars wrote:
>
> > On Jan 16, 2008 10:37 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 16, 2008 10:13 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
he technical mechanisms involved in making SUPPORT show up.
> >
> > I can agree to this.
>
> Iammars, do you consent to this?
>
>
Yes
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Jan 19, 2008 2:26 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the first attempt at resolving the voting for proposals 5390-5404 was
> unsuccesful:
> I nominate avpx for Mad Scientist.
> I nominate Iammars and woggle for Tailor.
> I nominate Murphy for Conductor.
se was to show the absurdity behind claiming Steve
Wallace was a game. Canadian politics is a game, as many people compete to
achieve their goals, although different people's goals may be different.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Jan 21, 2008 8:49 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 21 January 2008 18:44:46 Iammars wrote:
> > On Jan 21, 2008 3:45 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Monday 21 January 2008 13:42:50 Ian Kelly wrote:
> >
On Jan 21, 2008 8:57 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 21 January 2008 18:54:41 Iammars wrote:
> > The mathematics of game theory would like to have a word with you.
>
> I thought the normal-language usage took precedence over the mathematical
>
On Jan 23, 2008 10:53 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2008 7:53 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 5417 D0 2Murphy No notes for disinterested proposals
>
FOR
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
hings a rarity.
>
>
I congratulate you. This is the hardest I've laughed from reading any Nomic
post so far. And this includes the whole Canada discussion.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Jan 24, 2008 10:46 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 10:42 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 2008 10:37 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In honor of this brilliant proto-judgement, I (as an unreg
On Jan 24, 2008 11:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Judicial case ID numbers (Rule 2161)
>
> Highest orderly: 1880
> Disorderly:
>
This should probably be 1882.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
not appeal
> to sufficiently esoteric sources for its logic.
>
I SUPPORT, also on the basis that the phrase "purpose of enjoyment" is
ambiguous as to whether is modifies nomic or games. If it modifies games,
then I cite the definition in CFJ 1860 as to refute this.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
ontests, and partnerships.)
>
> I would like to exclude:
>-- First-class persons.
>-- Implicitly renegotiable situations (eg, casual chess).
>-- Pebbles.
>-- Systems which provide only for limited self-amendment, such as
> Fluxx.
>
>
> ... ?
>
>
> Pavitra
> --
> If it turns out that only girls like [Legend of Lotus
> Spring], I'm gonna go back to my bat-cave and cry.
>Andrew Plotkin
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
tself. The message clearly is the submission of a
contract/contest, therefore I judge TRUE.
[Not a hard one, I just needed the time to look up CFJ precedent, and I was
away for most of the weekend.]
--
-----Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
> > 5424 D0 2Zefram everything in its place
>
FOR
> > 5425 O1 1.7 Murphy A different sort of judicial question
>
ROOTx4
> > 5426 D1 2Murphy Corporate judges
>
AGAINST
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
> ;) )
>
> Heh. I actually had my performance plan written to include Agora one
> year.
> (Not anymore, unfortunately :( ). -Goethe
>
>
>
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Jan 31, 2008 3:49 AM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> == Tailor ==
>
> This notice resolves the Agoran Decision for the holder of the Tailor
> office.
>
> Votes:
> WOGGLE: root, zefram, woggle
> IAMMARS: pikhq, OscarMeyr, Iammars, Eris
>
> The
Yeah! First one!
I'll see into how to set up a SVN on my website for this report. This,
however, involves me doing research, something which I'm not prepared to do
tonight.
--
-----Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
;
> It also excludes Ivan Hope, who has a white ribbon.
>
> -root
>
Gotcha. Once I get in the swing of things I'll keep track of this as I go.
I'll fix these tomorrow.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
ld probably be "more than one player".
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
that is not an office
> >
> > A judgeship is such a position. I judge FALSE.
>
> Aww, crap, I trivially FALSEd where I meant to TRUE. I intend, with
> two supporters, to appeal this judgement.
>
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Feb 4, 2008 1:06 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2008 11:46 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wed 16 Jan 23:38:37 BobTHJ deregisters in a Writ of FAGE. (loses all
> > ribbons)
>
> CoE: You've got my deregistration, but not
n't be considered a vote of OBJECT because it isn't formatted
properly (needs to be in all caps)
B6 would be considered a vote of SUPPORT had it not been in a flash
document.
}
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
9:41:20 GMT
> REMANDED on Appeal: 20 Jan 2008 03:54:49 GMT
> Remanded to Eris: 20 Jan 2008 04:18:29 GMT
> Eris recused: 29 Jan 2008 06:36:55 GMT
> Assigned to Iammars:29 Jan 2008 07:42:17 GMT
> Judg
his contract without two objections from
contestants.
21. If Rumble is a contest, any member CAN replace the contestmaster as
permitted by the rules, with the contestmaster's consent.
22. This contract is a public contract by the rules of Agora.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Feb 5, 2008 10:40 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/4/08, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Now, the question is: Will this case finally die?
>
> I intend, with 2 supporters, to appeal Iammars's judgement of CFJ 1831
> (for no reason other than
e sharp/flat headings shifted a column to the left,
> into their proper place.
>
> format=flowed is an abomination and must die. Plain text used to have
> consistent rendering, until that came along.
>
> -zefram
>
I just copy and paste all of these into a text editor (eith
The key part of Rule 2149/8 is that a message doesn't have to be true, but
that the person who writes it believes that it is true. comes tries to
exploit a loophole that he thought would work, so Rule 2149/8 doesn't take
affect here. I proto-judge INNOCENT.
--
-----Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
http://jmcteague.com/mediawikiold/index.php?title=Agora_Nomic_Tailor%27s_Report
Put it up on my wiki because I decided it was easier than trying to create a
SVN or other stuff like that.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The key part of Rule 2149/8 is that a message doesn't have to be true,
> but
> > that the person who writes it belie
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> http://jmcteague.com/mediawikiold/index.php?title=Agora_Nomic_Tailor%27s_Report
> > Put it up on my wiki because I dec
#6 and #7 to Eris.
> >
> > I transfer 3 Water Rights Vouchers, 3 #8 crops, and land #6 to root.
> >
>
> And the purpose of this little exercise was?
>
> BobTHJ
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
believe, is every
> current player.
>
I support this.
Also, I haven't failed to resolve an Agoran Decision on time, mainly because
I haven't had to resolve an Agoran decision.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I support this.
>
> That's irrelevant, as is an "intent" to appeal a criminal case. The
> defenda
Okay, I'm working on the Tailor's report, and I remember something about
someone winning recently. What happened with that?
--
-----Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
Gotcha thanks.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Okay, I'm working on the Tailor's report, and I remember something about
> > someone winn
t; >
> > I thought the change was made?
> >
> Murphy's was, mine is still awaiting one more support. So far I have
> the consent of Murphy, Ivan Hope, and root.
>
> BobTHJ
I'll consent.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
3, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > > comex hasn't agreed to anything in panel 1903a, so it can't be
> jud
r to fill in the rest of the array. For
> > exmple, there's the word "COW" in the top row. That's just a fluke.
>
> In fact, there are more than 2000 words of 3 letters or more. My
> first name appears three times...
>
> -root
>
Heh. I didn
;s any further trouble I can give you."
>-- Unknown
>
Same here.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
of
> Eris.
>
> I create a Mill (land #14) with an Operator of * (multiplication) in the
> possession of root
>
> I create a Digit Ranch (land #15) with a Seed of 4 in the possession of
> BobTHJ
>
> SoA BobTHJ
>
>
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
we have a long-standing
> rivalry? :-)
>
> --Ivan Hope CXXVII
>
He missed that for everybody.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and some non-contestants
> will presumably vote AGAINST both.
>
Hi.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
or my
own good.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
Since some people are having trouble trying to find the connection between
the words, let me tell everybody this:
Using a wordlist of English words won't help you. You're gonna have to go
pop culture on this one if you want to find them all.
--
-----Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since some people are having trouble trying to find the connection
> between
> > the words, let me tell everybody this:
&
there's any further trouble I can give you."
>-- Unknown
>
Oh man, I want this job. :)
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh man, I want this job. :)
>
> Sure, until somebody comes up with a scam that involves creating
> hundreds of
lt as
> soon as possible, provided I am able to do it within that time period,
> first come first served. If I'm not able to do it within that time
> period, then I will return all three crops as soon as possible.
>
> -root
>
I make the same pledge with my subtraction mill.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
How did I not guess that from the name?
> I am certainly an idiot.
>
Apparently is wasn't obvious to anyone I talked to until root actually found
one of the pokemon in the grid.
Anyway, I'll try to get another Enigma puzzle out this week.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
eed of 0 in the possession of Iammars
>
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
This is why you need g-mail custom
time<http://mail.google.com/mail/help/customtime/index.html>
.
(http://mail.google.com/mail/help/customtime/index.html)
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apologies to Iammars and OscarMeyr for d
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
