DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2081-85 assigned to OscarMeyr

2008-08-04 Thread Elliott Hird 
2008/8/4 Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill,
 Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill.

 (cf. CFJ 2081).


Case was appealed.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2081-85 assigned to OscarMeyr

2008-08-04 Thread Kerim Aydin 

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
 2008/8/4 Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill,
 Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill.

 (cf. CFJ 2081).


 Case was appealed.

I know.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2081-85 assigned to OscarMeyr

2008-07-28 Thread Zefram 
Elliott Hird wrote:
This is an utterly preposterous judgement, as I was assisting in Goethe's
demonstration that failing speech acts were not illegal. It was not a threat
in any shape or form.

I concur that it was not a threat, but also note that threats to kill
do not violate the rules anyway.  It was a deliberately false statement,
and that *does* violate the rules.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2081-85 assigned to OscarMeyr

2008-07-28 Thread Elliott Hird 
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.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2081-85 assigned to OscarMeyr

2008-07-27 Thread ihope 
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 2008/7/27 Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 The action in question clearly could not have been taken through email.  As
 the Defendant has not attempted to eliminate the subject, the attempted
 action was false.  I therefore rule GUILTY.

 I sentence ehird as the ninny to APOLOGY -- yielding to Goethe the selection
 of the words to include in this apology -- and sternly warn the ninny:  Do
 not threaten players again, for the next time the judge should strongly
 consider a sentence of exile.

 This is an utterly preposterous judgement, as I was assisting in Goethe's
 demonstration that failing speech acts were not illegal. It was not a threat
 in any shape or form.

 With 2 support I intend to appeal this judgement.

I believe that, since you're the defendant, you can appeal it by
announcement. Maybe that was changed, though.

--Ivan Hope CXXVII