Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3642 judged FALSE
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:25 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > > I too would love to see your logic. My reasoning for using the honorific >> "Right" as a noun instead of as an adjective rests on an understanding of >> ancient, non-alphabetic languages. >> > > I think you mean "as an adjective instead of as an adverb". > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > English is hard.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3642 judged FALSE
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:34 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I don't know how mailing lists work. Is a "separate" message sent from > the list to each individual recipient? If so, is there any chance the > stamps on each individual copy of the same message would vary? > (obviously this might fall under "game-changing delay" that you cite > as being rare, but I'm curious if it's a regular thing). If you look at the full headers, each message has quite a few timestamps on it. There's the Date header, which is set by the sender: the mailing list doesn't change this when it forwards messages, so it should be consistent for everyone. But it can easily be an arbitrary "unreasonable" time if, say, the sender has their clock set wrong, if they send the message while offline (or some other issue delays it from reaching the list server), or if they outright forged it. In addition, there's one Received header for each SMTP server the message passes through, noting the name of the server and the time it received it (according to its own clock). There used to be a precedent that the Received header set by the list server (vps.qoid.us) should be considered the "date stamp" to use, though I vaguely remember there may have been a conflicting judgement later on…
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3642 judged FALSE
On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Benjamin Schultz wrote: I too would love to see your logic. My reasoning for using the honorific "Right" as a noun instead of as an adjective rests on an understanding of ancient, non-alphabetic languages. I think you mean "as an adjective instead of as an adverb". Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3642 judged FALSE
I too would love to see your logic. My reasoning for using the honorific "Right" as a noun instead of as an adjective rests on an understanding of ancient, non-alphabetic languages. OscarMeyr On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Love to see your logic! When I last had the job I kept meaning to > rearrange > the Herald's Scroll to be by-person, e.g. OscarMeyr the Thrice-Victorious, > Conspirator of Fantasies, Spinner of Scams, 12th Degree Bureaucrat, O.L. > > On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > Under my logic, you are only entitled to be called The Victorious > > OscarMeyr. I put together my logic on a whim to try to give more usage to > > patent titles, but if people wanted to know it, I could write it up and > > share it. > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:40 Benjamin Schultz < > ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Should I ever re-register, I am tempted to insist on being addressed as > > > "the Right and Victorious OscarMeyr". > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3642 judged FALSE
On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 06:34 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I don't know how mailing lists work. Is a "separate" message sent > from the list to each individual recipient? If two recipients have different mailservers, the mailing list will have to forward the email to each mailserver individually. It'll have headers indicating that it's conceptually the same message, but it's physically a different sequence of bits sent over the network. > If so, is there any chance the stamps on each individual copy of the > same message would vary? Emails have a sequence of timestamps in their headers, indicating when they reached each mailserver. The timestamp specifying when the email reached the mailing list's mailserver should be the same (for obvious reasons), but the timestamp specifying when it reached the recipient's mailserver may well vary considerably. (Imagine if the recipient's mailserver were temporarily offline when the first attempt to deliver the message was made; the mailing list will notice that the message didn't get through and will try again a few hours later.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3642 judged FALSE
No, they should be The Flighty. -Aris On Tue, Jun 26, 2018, 12:47 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I considered giving "The Elusive" to fugitives, but given that being a > fugitive is not necessarily positive, I wasn't sure that it would fit > with the other titles. > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > We should actually make Quazie "The Elusive". > > > > -Aris > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018, 12:25 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I'll write it up before the birthday, but unfortunately, my logic does > >> not encompass every patent title or only patent titles, so it may not > >> fully resolve the organization of the scroll. > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > Love to see your logic! When I last had the job I kept meaning to > >> rearrange > >> > the Herald's Scroll to be by-person, e.g. OscarMeyr the > >> Thrice-Victorious, > >> > Conspirator of Fantasies, Spinner of Scams, 12th Degree Bureaucrat, > O.L. > >> > > >> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > >> >> Under my logic, you are only entitled to be called The Victorious > >> >> OscarMeyr. I put together my logic on a whim to try to give more > usage > >> to > >> >> patent titles, but if people wanted to know it, I could write it up > and > >> >> share it. > >> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:40 Benjamin Schultz < > >> ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Should I ever re-register, I am tempted to insist on being > addressed > >> as > >> >> > "the Right and Victorious OscarMeyr". > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3642 judged FALSE
I considered giving "The Elusive" to fugitives, but given that being a fugitive is not necessarily positive, I wasn't sure that it would fit with the other titles. On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > We should actually make Quazie "The Elusive". > > -Aris > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018, 12:25 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'll write it up before the birthday, but unfortunately, my logic does >> not encompass every patent title or only patent titles, so it may not >> fully resolve the organization of the scroll. >> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Love to see your logic! When I last had the job I kept meaning to >> rearrange >> > the Herald's Scroll to be by-person, e.g. OscarMeyr the >> Thrice-Victorious, >> > Conspirator of Fantasies, Spinner of Scams, 12th Degree Bureaucrat, O.L. >> > >> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> >> Under my logic, you are only entitled to be called The Victorious >> >> OscarMeyr. I put together my logic on a whim to try to give more usage >> to >> >> patent titles, but if people wanted to know it, I could write it up and >> >> share it. >> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:40 Benjamin Schultz < >> ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Should I ever re-register, I am tempted to insist on being addressed >> as >> >> > "the Right and Victorious OscarMeyr". >> >> > >> >> >> > >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3642 judged FALSE
We should actually make Quazie "The Elusive". -Aris On Tue, Jun 26, 2018, 12:25 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'll write it up before the birthday, but unfortunately, my logic does > not encompass every patent title or only patent titles, so it may not > fully resolve the organization of the scroll. > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > Love to see your logic! When I last had the job I kept meaning to > rearrange > > the Herald's Scroll to be by-person, e.g. OscarMeyr the > Thrice-Victorious, > > Conspirator of Fantasies, Spinner of Scams, 12th Degree Bureaucrat, O.L. > > > > On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > >> Under my logic, you are only entitled to be called The Victorious > >> OscarMeyr. I put together my logic on a whim to try to give more usage > to > >> patent titles, but if people wanted to know it, I could write it up and > >> share it. > >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:40 Benjamin Schultz < > ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Should I ever re-register, I am tempted to insist on being addressed > as > >> > "the Right and Victorious OscarMeyr". > >> > > >> > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3642 judged FALSE
I'll write it up before the birthday, but unfortunately, my logic does not encompass every patent title or only patent titles, so it may not fully resolve the organization of the scroll. On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Love to see your logic! When I last had the job I kept meaning to rearrange > the Herald's Scroll to be by-person, e.g. OscarMeyr the Thrice-Victorious, > Conspirator of Fantasies, Spinner of Scams, 12th Degree Bureaucrat, O.L. > > On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> Under my logic, you are only entitled to be called The Victorious >> OscarMeyr. I put together my logic on a whim to try to give more usage to >> patent titles, but if people wanted to know it, I could write it up and >> share it. >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:40 Benjamin Schultz >> wrote: >> >> > Should I ever re-register, I am tempted to insist on being addressed as >> > "the Right and Victorious OscarMeyr". >> > >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3642 judged FALSE
Love to see your logic! When I last had the job I kept meaning to rearrange the Herald's Scroll to be by-person, e.g. OscarMeyr the Thrice-Victorious, Conspirator of Fantasies, Spinner of Scams, 12th Degree Bureaucrat, O.L. On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Under my logic, you are only entitled to be called The Victorious > OscarMeyr. I put together my logic on a whim to try to give more usage to > patent titles, but if people wanted to know it, I could write it up and > share it. > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:40 Benjamin Schultz > wrote: > > > Should I ever re-register, I am tempted to insist on being addressed as > > "the Right and Victorious OscarMeyr". > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3642 judged FALSE
Under my logic, you are only entitled to be called The Victorious OscarMeyr. I put together my logic on a whim to try to give more usage to patent titles, but if people wanted to know it, I could write it up and share it. On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:40 Benjamin Schultz wrote: > Should I ever re-register, I am tempted to insist on being addressed as > "the Right and Victorious OscarMeyr". >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3642 judged FALSE
A separate message is sent to each subscriber, therefore variation could occur. However, given the small size of this mailing list, any such variation should be insignificant and from my understanding, regular. By regular, I mean that if my time stamp is 2 seconds after yours on one message, then on a different message, the same difference would occur, therefore the order of events and time between events should not be in dispute. However, I don't know much about mailing lists either, so if someone else thinks that I am wrong, they probably have a point. On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 09:36 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! The court delivers below a verdict on CFJ 3642, > > called by The Victorious and Honourable Aris. > > Utterly brilliant overall. Thank you. > > Technical question, you write: > > 478 states, "Any action performed by sending a message is performed at > > the time date-stamped on that message." This is interpreted to refer > > to that time at which it is sent from the mailing list to the > > individual recipients, > > I don't know how mailing lists work. Is a "separate" message sent from > the list to each individual recipient? If so, is there any chance the > stamps on each individual copy of the same message would vary? > (obviously this might fall under "game-changing delay" that you cite > as being rare, but I'm curious if it's a regular thing). > > > >
