On 6/11/06, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Deckmastor keeps records on cards and
(at time of CFJ) pending draws; therefore, pending draws are regulated.
Cite the rule that requires this.
The question is therefore, to what extent were pending draws regulated
at time of CFJ.
On 6/18/06, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nominations hereby open for Justiciar. Mode is Selfless.
Meanie. I nominate Murphy.
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 6/29/06, Chuck Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Happy birthday, Agora! Wow, 13 years and still going!
Amazing. Happy Birthday, Agora.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 7/17/06, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Of course, with no CotC, any crimes resulting from the above can't
be prosecuted, in which case Agora is as truly dead as I think it
is).
Do we have a Justiciar?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't pro
osal" (R1483) and "place a proposal in the
pool". R2019 also has clear precedence, so there is no additional
conflict to consider.
I judge CFJ 1586 TRUE.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
it become a proposal, then the Assessor is the
Proposer of that new Proposal.
Based on my argument in CFJ 1586, the publication of a copy of the
vetoed proposal is not required in order to place a copy of the
proposal in the pool.
I dismiss CFJ 1587.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Yo
On 8/15/06, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looks like the resubmit of judicial reforms I sent yesterday is
stuck in the oversized queue again.
Well, make it SMALLER! (Approved.)
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
s stuck, send me something.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 9/18/06, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If so, would the Glorious Speaker please collect the votes.
Not me! *dances*
--
The Goddess Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 10/3/06, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/3/06, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 4872 | Voting Credits | OscarMeyr | 3 | 09Sep06 | D
>
> AGAINST - voting power doesn't get reset, the Promotor is allowed to
> be nitpicky.
The p
On 10/4/06, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nitpicky... how?
It says e "may" accept the alternate meanings. It needs to say "shall".
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 10/26/06, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Agora can't die... it just can't...
On 10/26/06, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 1. Does anyone else care if this game continues, really?
>
> 2. Would it help if I published the new ruleset? (Answer honestly,
> I don't want to waste ti
On 11/9/06, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby gamble and commit wanton adultery.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 11/9/06, Grey Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No.| Title | By| AI | Date| Flag
> 4874 | The Final Word| Goethe| 4 | 26Oct06 | D
I vote AGAINST.
You are all so boring.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't pr
an be
kind of difficult to actually play the game. I'd support a complete reboot
that got rid of our judicial/legislative history and stripped down the ruleset
to 5-10 rules, but I have a feeling I'm alone in that.
Not alone... but you may as well start a new Nomic.
--
Taral <[EMAI
On 12/19/06, Manuel Lanctot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe having a better front page at agoranomic.org might help too.
Write one! I'll put it up.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 12/19/06, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If all of the archives exist in some form, it wouldn't be that hard to make
a wiki archive of them[.]
Well, ever since I was CotC, the CFJs have been stored in a database
for easy processing.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 12/20/06, Chuck Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Saw the recruiting drive invitation on Fantasy Rules Committee. I
register. How do I get started?
I suggest you read the ruleset -- at least what's left of it after the
recent attack by rule devourers. Help fight the devourers!
I think someo
domain's pretty new)
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2006-December/002743.html
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 12/20/06, Jonathan Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Taral wrote:
> Write one! I'll put it up.
I have no HTML skills, but would be happy to help with content for such a page
if someone else were to code it.
Sounds good.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't
On 12/20/06, Manuel Lanctot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You asked for it, you got it.
http://agora.lendemaindeveille.com
I'll buy a domain name if we use it enough. Now let's see how long it
takes for spam bots
to find it.
If you like, I can put up a record for it on agoranomi
7;ll allege that Goethe had
won by paradox.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 12/20/06, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Forget that. If I were still registered I'll allege that Goethe had
won by paradox.
I'd. Damn fast typing.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 12/21/06, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|+---#---+| Nomic has the current membership and turn order:
Taral
I don't remember this one.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
hink of it as a proto-
judgement. If a newly-assigned judge agrees, all is consistent
and no paradox exists.
Oooo.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
44:10 -0800; unless
e announced "Wait! Wait! I've changed my mind!" during the voting
period of this proposal, in which case e is deemed not to have been
so deregistered.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 12/21/06, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
King me!
Congratulations.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 12/22/06, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[uncontrolled scheming snipped]
Such a shame... of course, there shouldn't be any distributions during
the Holiday...
--
The Goddess Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
sage is that "A, B, C are mutually
exclusive X" for {A, B, C} \subset X. Doesn't makes sense otherwise.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
uments that don't make sense are also nothing new. :)
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
AWW!
On 1/10/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/10/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I register again. :D
You deregistered on 13 December, so rule 869 prohibits you from
registering today.
--
Michael Slone
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&quo
On 1/10/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What started the Great Repeals anyway? They've been monstrously more
successful than any of the Chromatic Repeals ever were.
We got bored.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
nywhere in the Rules, so I think it
no longer has any numerical properties.
It retains the properties it had when it was last defined, no?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
om says it's quite reasonable to reach back for the last sensible
thing.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 1/11/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The rule we choose is the following. First select a nonprincipal
ultrafilter on the natural numbers.
I *hate* the ultrapower construction, because nobody's been able to
actually construct a free ultrafilter.
--
Taral <[E
On 1/12/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/11/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I *hate* the ultrapower construction, because nobody's been able to
> actually construct a free ultrafilter.
Nobody's been able to construct a free ultrafilter beca
y have
ceased to exist.
Protoproposal: Poof!
Create a rule with the following text:
Zefram is a Player.
Repeal the Rule just created.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 1/12/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you talking about the Schmieden--Laugwitz construction (using a cofinite
filter)? Their construction produces a ring with zero divisors, and
it isn't even an ordered ring.
Hm, it seems I was mistaken.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PR
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood,
but so do some other rules.
If a rule says "X is a Y.", under what circumstances does it then define X?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When X does not exist independently of the rules.
What if it says "This Rule defines X. X is a Y."?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
xist.
How exactly does a Rule lie? If such a Rule were to be enacted and
then subsequently repealed, a Judge could quite reasonably conclude
that X no longer exists, since the Rules say so. And so on...
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Proposal, and are deemed to have been executed as of the
date of the proclamation of the Proposal's adoption.
I read "deemed" like "defined" here.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
assignments Schrodinger-illegal.
And that is *why* it's written Pragmatically. I believe we've already
had a rotation paradox.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
ally required to perform or which it is impossible
not to perform, is considered an invalid order.
What the hell happened to "Ought Implies Can"?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
is that it tends to have plenty of subtle errors to
start with. And I consider the baroque complexity to be a bad thing.
My recollection is that Kelly doesn't like the whole Proposal/Rule
dichotomy in the first place.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
I am sorely tempted to post "I deem myself registered."
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Thief!
On 2/7/07, Grey Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I deem myself to be deregistered.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 2/26/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Pineapple Partnership hereby registers as a player.
Oh, beautiful!
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
change "all" to "any" and strike the second sentence.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
erships any free votes.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 2/28/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sigh. But that's the point. If you're not going to grant partnerships
any benefits of registering why regulate them at all? It's just a
wasted Rule.
Voting Credits.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can&
mping of the judiciary?
Err... it's just a summary of a larger list of items. Sure, you can
publish it, and if someone is interested in implementing it, please
get a hold of me so we can discuss the full list.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
ram/agora/current_flr.txt>. The SLR is
available in the same directory.
Done, thanks :)
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
tmp/agoranomic.html>. Taral, please put
it up on <http://www.agoranomic.org>. Amendments are welcome. Also,
as I do only structural markup and not visual design, if someone wants
to produce a CSS stylesheet that might be a useful addition.
-zefram
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Y
wer
equal to its own for the duration of the announcement.
This is unnecessary, in my opinion. Self-repeal text should say:
If , then, upon the announcement by any Player of this
condition being true, this Rule repeals itself.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can'
Abracadabra! *poof*
On 4/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*prod*
The website's still in its old crap form. Please put up the page that
I drafted at <http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/tmp/agoranomic.html>.
-zefram
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can'
On 4/25/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>I'm voting against this, because I don't see Zefram adding emself to
>the map in this proposal.
Eep. I thought I'd attract votes against if I *did* add anything.
Yes!
--
Taral <[EMAI
On 4/28/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here's a possible temporary patch on the proposal system, pending
upmutation of the right bits of the proposal system:
Too subjective. How about a rule that lets anyone make a proposal
Democratic, with some amount of support?
--
Ta
On 4/29/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 28, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Taral wrote:
I, The Goddess Eris, register.
I, Promotor OscarMeyr, welcome you back. How was your vacation?
Fascinating.
--
The Goddess Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove an
On 4/29/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make Murphy the holder of the office
of Clerk of the Courts.
I object. This is a scam-response, not a failure to do the job. Goethe
seems to do it well.
--
The Goddess Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't pro
On 4/29/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proposal: Protection Racket
To tell apart the two proposals, this proposal has been entered as
Protection Racket (2).
What, did the "duplicate proposal" rule get repealed too?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&qu
4947 - FOR
4948 - FOR
4949 - FOR
4950 - FOR
4951 - FOR
4952 - 9xAGAINST
4953 - FOR
4954 - AGAINST (I still don't like so much subjectivity in a core system)
4955 - FOR
4956 - FOR
4957 - 9xAGAINST
4957 | Protection Racket (2) | Murphy| 1 | 29Apr07 | O
I call for judgement on the fo
You don't have to ask permission. :D
On 4/30/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby request permission to register under the name BobTHJ.
Thanks,
BobTHJ
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 4/30/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Welcome! When I joined, "requesting" was the time-honored
way to actually join. I suggest we honor the reverse and
say, welcome!
Interesting! But does one "request permission to join" or "request to
join&
On 5/3/07, quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So non-natural players may not vote on democratic proposals?
Exactly.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 5/3/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
4941 4942 4943 4944 4945 4946
AI 3 3 3 3 1.1 1.1
VI 0.75 7 3.5 *U*1 2.5
4945 looks like failed to pass to me. Or is there some quirk I'm missing?
--
Ta
On 5/3/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And I reported it as failing to pass. In particular, the "Text of
adopted proposals" section does not include it.
Oops, I got the columns confused, thought 4945 was "Slim the map".
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTE
is that at any point, the voting limit is one less than it
would be if the voter was not a natural person.
Any suggestions on wording?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 5/4/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have a better idea: restrict playerhood to actual persons.
How boring.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
7;s hard to determine in a context-free
manner if this is a 2-state switch or an N-state switch.
2. I want to be the first to transfer a Trinket to itself.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
eate a Rule that defines a player switch with states god and mortal.
If a player is god, allow em to do something atrocious. State that
only gods may flip the god switch. Make all players mortal by default.
Timing havoc!
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
e has come?
I think deontic logic might be closer, but it axiomatizes the concept
that "ought implies can".
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 5/9/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Grant executorship of the Pineapple Partnership to Goethe and Zefram.
Grant executorship of Human Point Two to Murphy and Quazie.
Are proposals empowered to change executorship?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can
On 5/9/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/8/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think deontic logic might be closer,
Closer than what to what?
Closer than other modal logics to what we need.
>but it axiomatizes
On 5/9/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyone interested?
In electing you Promotor? Sure...
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 5/9/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/9/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, I'm going on what wikipedia says: deontic logics are modal
> logics with axiom D: O(A) -> P(A).
But P(A) means that A is permissible, not that A is possible.
I&#x
of the individual rather than the
ambiguity of the description which prevents public agreement.
You, sir, are cited for the use of domain-specific meanings in a
general context. :P
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 5/15/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would expect a goddess to know not to call me ``sir''.
Bah, you'd spoil a perfectly quotable statement with some nitpick. :P
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"She, he... do you really want to get that close?"
-- Me
On 5/15/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
C. Maud Image There's your clue right there, Your Chaoticity!
-/
C for Charles, obviously. Your mother had a strange sense of humor in
selecting your middle name. :D
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anythin
y has a Cokernel.
Curiouser and curiouser.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
existing text.)
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
erhaps having an
(authoritative) encoding of the rules in a logic, instead of a
programming language, would work better.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Murphy Don't force redundant elections
FOR
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 5/21/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In any case, it's too meta for me, and *I'm* a mathematician.
I'm surprised. It's clearly a case of the box that attempts to contain
itself. Maybe you need more applied in your math.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTE
, e is hereby deregistered.
I am not sure that a proposal is empowered to deregister players.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Taral wrote:
>I am not sure that a proposal is empowered to deregister players.
Why not? Proposals can make pretty much any change to the gamestate.
They can? Where does it say that?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please le
making
^^
other explicit changes to the gamestate.
Ah.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
sador act or not act in a specified fashion
in relation to a Protectorate.
}
Upon passage of this Proposal, the holder of the Office of Ambassador shall
be BobTHJ
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
You can withdraw and resubmit.
On 5/24/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suppose so. Am I permitted to modify proposals after I submit them?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 5/26/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proposal 4992 (Ordinary, AI=1) by Goddess Eris
Quorum fix
I am a twit. This is supposed to be AI=2. :(
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
actly what I claimed when I said my deregistration
paradox couldn't be resolved by appeal. But y'all didn't buy the
logic then, and it seems to be resolved... -G.
I consider it a case of (~P -> P) -> P.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 5/30/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
P -> (~P -> P)
But I'm confused. What precisely is P supposed to represent in this context?
Any proposition.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 5/30/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I assign CFJ 1684 to Eris. Eris is now turned.
Meanie.
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so Eris's claim doesn't resolve the original ~P -> P -> ~P -> (...)
paradox at all. Unless I misunderstood her first statement.
How do you get "PP is a not a person -> PP is a person"? I must have
missed
On 6/6/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I write "Kallisti" on the back of 1 Share of Primo Corporation,
then transfer it to Eris.
I attempt to eat 1 Share of Primo Corporation, but it doesn't taste
very good. Whatever happened to using apples?
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me
non-natural-person members.
A partnership is prohibited from registering if its basis is
the same as that of another registered partnership.
Very good. Now just identify them and we'll avoid any issues.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there&
On 6/7/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Taral wrote:
>Very good. Now just identify them and we'll avoid any issues.
We voted against that already: proposals 4973 and 4974.
Sorry, math "identify" - make equal.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please
ut
the variable amount of blank space at the beginning of each
line) 'diff' found no differences between the two texts.
My records also show inserted whitespace.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
ld be more accesible.
Pick up the "zap colors" bookmarklet:
http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 6/11/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary.
Spurious "of"?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
1 - 100 of 851 matches
Mail list logo
