On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Quazie wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Actually, in this case I'm pretty sure the continuity of the patent
>> title (continuing to be officially held while undefined) means it's
>> the same thing. -Goethe
>>
>
> Was the de
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Quazie wrote:
>>> [Aside: when something is undefined, therefore ceasing to exist,
>>> is a thing which is later redefined under the same name the same
>>> thing?]
>>>
>> Sounds like a CFJ to me.
>
> A
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Quazie wrote:
>> [Aside: when something is undefined, therefore ceasing to exist,
>> is a thing which is later redefined under the same name the same
>> thing?]
>>
> Sounds like a CFJ to me.
Actually, in this case I'm pretty sure the continuity of the patent
title (continuing
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2080
>
> == CFJ 2080 ==
>
>I CFJ on this statement.
>
> ==
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
>>> Left in a Huff: Waggie, Gecko, Kelly (x3!), Swann, KoJen, Zefram,
>>>Vlad, Andre, Goethe, BobTHJ
>>
>> CoE: Left in a Huff is a defined patent title.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> With 2 Support, I intend to appeal this judgement.
>
> *sigh* yet another well-reasoned CFJ appealed by "the other side"
> with no soluble arguments to its unreasonableness. -Go
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> With 2 Support, I intend to appeal this judgement.
*sigh* yet another well-reasoned CFJ appealed by "the other side"
with no soluble arguments to its unreasonableness. -Goethe
Quazie wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ivan Hope wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend to deputise for the Assessor to resolve the Agoran decision
on whether to adopt proposal 5582.
>>>
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I intend to deputise for the Assessor to resolve the Agoran decision
>>> on whether to adopt proposal 5582.
>>
>> I deputise for the A
Ivan Hope wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intend to deputise for the Assessor to resolve the Agoran decision
>> on whether to adopt proposal 5582.
>
> I deputise for the Assessor to resolve the Agoran decision on whether
> to adopt proposal 5582. T
comex wrote:
> The AFO initiates a criminal CFJ:
It can't.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:32 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to the following: {This is a pledge. Ivan Hope is always in
> violation of this pledge. Ivan Hope can leave this pledge by
> announcement.}
>
> Now, assuming that "Ivan Hope is always in violation of this pledge"
> works, I
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:32 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to the following: {This is a pledge. Ivan Hope is always in
> violation of this pledge. Ivan Hope can leave this pledge by
> announcement.}
>
> Now, assuming that "Ivan Hope is always in violation of this pledge"
> works,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
> case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
> person from assignment as judge of the case. If the initiator is
> a partnership, a
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:09 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree to the following contract:
>> {
>> This is a public contract.
>> Sgeo SHALL give 50 VP to ihope as soon as possible after ihope agrees
>> to this contrac
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or do you think the are some limits on how we can specify parameters without
> which the dependant action would be IMPOSSIBLE to perform besides them
> leading to ambiguity at the time the action would be resolved?
...Req
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:31 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The first issue is whether the statement of intent "unambiguously
> > descri[s] both the action and the method". The method (Agoran Consent)
> > is corr
Why? Cause you don't personally like it?
On 17/07/2008, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj
> 7 Jul 2008 15:49:00 -0400
> Attempted action by Sgeo: "With Agoran Consent, I act on behalf
> of Agora to award myself and all supporters a Win." Success of
> action subject to CFJ 2055.
>
> 7 Jul 2008 15:59:46 -0400
> Sgeo posts (or attempts to post subject to CFJ 205
Quazie wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
> "Partnerships devolve, and so should unqualifications" AI=1.7
> ---
> Replace the following from R591
> {
> The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
> case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
>
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is just a proto of a contract. I do not agree to this contract at
> this time.
>
> {
> This is a public contract called "Vote Market Insurance". Parties to
> this contract are known as Insurees.
>
> Any entity that either posse
This is just a proto of a contract. I do not agree to this contract at
this time.
{
This is a public contract called "Vote Market Insurance". Parties to
this contract are known as Insurees.
Any entity that either possesses VP or is bound by the Vote Market may
join this contract by announcement.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regardless we created a person
I'm not convinced of that either. See CFJ 2061.
-root
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 8. When both Quazie and tusho join this partnership, it registers as
>> "Blind, Deaf, and Mute"
>
> This doesn't work. You have to make an announcement to r
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 8. When both Quazie and tusho join this partnership, it registers as
> "Blind, Deaf, and Mute"
This doesn't work. You have to make an announcement to register. You
can't specify some condition where it happens automatically.
-
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
>>> case
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
>> case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
>> person from as
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
>> case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
>> person from as
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
>> case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
>> person from as
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
> case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
> person from assignment as judge of the case. If the initiator is
> a partnership, a
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:46 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 14:31 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> 2008/7/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > Actually, you got that backwards, in Canada, Dancing created a dance,
>> > rather than getting rid of one. OTOH, it might be qui
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:08 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 18:05 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> 2008/7/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 18:00 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> >> I post the following Buy Ticket:
>> >> Cost: 2VP
>> >> Action: Atte
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:59 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 19:34 +0100, ais523 wrote:
>> I fill this ticket, specifying the following action: {{Transfer exactly
>> one of either exactly 2VP or exactly 12VP to the filler of this ticket
>> (i.e. ais523).}}
> I think t
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:23 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 10:12 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Federal Subsidy: 7
> I request subsidisation.
Fails. You must own less than 7 lands at the beginning of the week to
request subsidy.
BobTHJ
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As such, even though the entity in
>> question is both a public message and a Forum, it is a Public Message
>> and a Forgein Forum. As a result I judg
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As such, even though the entity in
> question is both a public message and a Forum, it is a Public Message
> and a Forgein Forum. As a result I judge this CFJ FALSE.
Next you'll tell us that Ctesippus' dog isn't really his fathe
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I hereby deputize for the Assessor to resolve the Agoran decisions to
>> adopt proposals 5577-5584, exlcuding 5582 which was already resolved
>> but i
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/16 Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> If the PerlNomic Partnership transferred 150 chits to me as a result of the
>> message quoted above, I hereby transfer 75 chits to Wooble.
>
> Thank you. I apologise to Wooble
2008/7/16 Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If the PerlNomic Partnership transferred 150 chits to me as a result of the
> message quoted above, I hereby transfer 75 chits to Wooble.
Thank you. I apologise to Wooble for my mistake.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> AI<1 proposals would be unable to modify rules. Additionally, any
>> proposal that requires AI<1 to pass presumably could be trivially
>> reversed by the action of an opposing AI<=1 proposal.
>
> Such proposals can
2008/7/16 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You gave Woggle 300 chits.
>
> Err, 150. That'll teach me to a) fix perlnomic, b) retract the equity
> case that probably would have given me all of the chits I'd
> contrib
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You gave Woggle 300 chits.
Err, 150. That'll teach me to a) fix perlnomic, b) retract the equity
case that probably would have given me all of the chits I'd
contributed, and c) attempt to tip the 4 players I thought migh
2008/7/16 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I join the Protection Racket.
>
> I initiate a criminal CFJ, with tusho as the defendant, alleging that
> e violated Rule 2029 by changing eir posture to sitting.
>
> --Wooble
>
Trying to exile me, ey?
Do as you wish, but you're a jerk.
tusho
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/16 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I retract my votes on Proposal 5643 and vote AGAINST * 8
>>
>> I once again retract my votes on
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:40 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I transfer 75 chits each to Woggle, ais523, Ivan Hope, tusho, and woggle
>
Woggle twice?
2008/7/16 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I retract my votes on Proposal 5643 and vote AGAINST * 8
>
> I once again retract my votes on 5643 and vote FOR * 8.
>
Even after 150 chits?
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> AI<1 proposals would be unable to modify rules. Additionally, any
> proposal that requires AI<1 to pass presumably could be trivially
> reversed by the action of an opposing AI<=1 proposal.
Such proposals can't even be adopted; R955(b). -Goethe
2008/7/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I transfer 1VP to Wooble, as compensation for eir lost chits.
> --
> ais523
>
Dude, the PNP gave 75*2 chits to em. Read it carefully.
2008/7/16 The PerlNomic Partnership <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I transfer 75 chits each to Woggle, ais523, Ivan Hope, tusho, and woggle
>
ilu
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:14 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, what might be really interesting would be an antiveto that
> lowered AI by 1; AI<1 proposals could be interesting, as could making
> proposals insufficiently powerful so they couldn't do what they were
> meant to be ab
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 13:18 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:14 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of course, what might be really interesting would be an antiveto that
> > lowered AI by 1; AI<1 proposals could be interesting, as could making
> > proposals insufficien
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:14 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, what might be really interesting would be an antiveto that
> lowered AI by 1; AI<1 proposals could be interesting, as could making
> proposals insufficiently powerful so they couldn't do what they were
> meant to be abl
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 11:10 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> It's not broken. As I noted in the other thread, an ordinary decision
> that is vetoed once becomes democratic and is no longer eligible for
> veto.
>
> -root
Ah, yes, the rules seem to back you up on that; still, I was
contractually obligated
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, entitled "fix veto loophole", and set
> its AI to 2.
>
> In Rule 2019, replace:
>
> c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary
> decision in its voting
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 18:05 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 18:00 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> >> I post the following Buy Ticket:
> >> Cost: 2VP
> >> Action: Attempt to veto the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt proposal
> >> 5643 at l
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:02 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 18:00 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> I post the following Buy Ticket:
>> Cost: 2VP
>> Action: Attempt to veto the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt proposal
>> 5643 at least 3 times.
> I fill this ticket.
>
2008/7/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 18:00 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> I post the following Buy Ticket:
>> Cost: 2VP
>> Action: Attempt to veto the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt proposal
>> 5643 at least 3 times.
> I fill this ticket.
>
> I attempt to veto the Agora
NttPF
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:49 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 00:53 +, Zefram wrote:
>> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> I vote as follows:
>> 5640 O1 1.5 Goethe Take it to Equity!
> FOR*4
>> 5641 D1 2Taral Pragmatic ribbons
> AGAINST, t
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/16 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> and, for that matter, why hasn't ##nomic registered yet?
>>
>
> ##nomic registers.
Since I'm not aware of any public partnership by that name, I'm
treating this as ineffective.
-ro
I hereby vote:
> 5640 O1 1.5 Goethe Take it to Equity!
5xFOR
> 5641 D1 2Taral Pragmatic ribbons
Present
> 5642 D1 2Sgeo
AGAINST
> 5643 O1 1comex a probably unsuccessful attempt at dereg...
5xAGAINST [Sell ticket: will retract and vote FOR for 10V
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> Arguably, it's possible to infer a mechanism to Dance a Powerful Dance
> from the Town Fountain. I tend to think of pretty much everything
> mentioned in the rules as potentially definable, or defined, by them.
Except R754 defers to a dictionary unless an expl
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:26 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 09:20 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
>> >> 5643 O1 1comex a probably unsuccessful attempt at dereg...
>> > AGAINST*1500 (disclaimer: most of these votes are unlike
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 09:20 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> >> 5643 O1 1comex a probably unsuccessful attempt at dereg...
> > AGAINST*1500 (disclaimer: most of these votes are unlikely to be valid)
>
> In this one special case, no disclaimer is needed,
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
>> 5643 O1 1comex a probably unsuccessful attempt at dereg...
> AGAINST*1500 (disclaimer: most of these votes are unlikely to be valid)
In this one special case, no disclaimer is needed, because it's not
impossible or illegal to cast an invalid ballo
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:55 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 17:01 -0700, Quazie wrote:
>> E actually violated a contract instead. ##nomic was a contract
>> forbidding the eating of cake at the time (if i have my timing
>> correct).
> Actually, ##nomic still claims to
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 17:01 -0700, Quazie wrote:
> E actually violated a contract instead. ##nomic was a contract
> forbidding the eating of cake at the time (if i have my timing
> correct).
Actually, ##nomic still claims to be a public contract forbidding the
eating of cake, but it is obviously l
2008/7/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, I get the best of all worlds with that ticket: price set so high
> it's unlikely ever to be accepted (thus I never have to risk actually
> using the veto and possibly annoying people because of it), me being
> able to claim that at least I gave you the
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 16:48 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I post the following Sell Ticket:
> > Cost: At least 8 VP, optionally more VP than that
> > Action: Veto the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt proposal 5643 a
> > number of times equal to the number
2008/7/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I post the following Sell Ticket:
> Cost: At least 8 VP, optionally more VP than that
> Action: Veto the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt proposal 5643 a
> number of times equal to the number of VP in excess of 7 spent by the
> filler of this ticket (e.g.
2008/7/16 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Good luck with that. Stop holding my chits hostage and I'll happy
> change my vote to AGAINST.
>
http://nomic.info/perlnomic/current-proposals/comments.Wooble.dispersechits
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/16 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> 5643 O1 1comex a probably unsuccessful attempt at dereg...
>> FOR * 8
>
> With two support I intend to cause Wooble to stop being a dick.
Good luck with that.
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 16:50 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
> > comex wrote:
> >> - action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id
> >
> > The term "dance" has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora,
> > referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 00:18 +0100, Zefram wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> > Zefram does not update it instantaneously when
> >the voting period ends.)
>
> It's not intended to be a list of proposals that are in their voting
> period, it's a list of *unresolved* proposals. A propo
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 00:53 +, Zefram wrote:
> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
I vote as follows:
> 5640 O1 1.5 Goethe Take it to Equity!
FOR*4
> 5641 D1 2Taral Pragmatic ribbons
AGAINST, typo. Fix that and I'll support.
> 5642 D1 2Sgeo
FOR
> 5643 O1 1co
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 14:31 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Actually, you got that backwards, in Canada, Dancing created a dance,
> > rather than getting rid of one. OTOH, it might be quite difficult to
> > gather the required resources to Dance a Powerful Dan
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:02 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assets are not inherently information
Agoran assets are nothing more than information that some entity is
keeping a record of.
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 19:47 -0600, Charles Reiss wrote:
>
> I do this to the pubic forum:
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:09 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:08 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5641 D1 2Taral Pragmatic ribbons
>> AGAINST
>
> What's wrong with it?
Because pragmatism, Agoran custom as much as it may be, is not
sufficiently D
2008/7/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Actually, you got that backwards, in Canada, Dancing created a dance,
> rather than getting rid of one. OTOH, it might be quite difficult to
> gather the required resources to Dance a Powerful Dance there.
> --
> ais523
>
Er, I thought we defined it so that
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 23:03 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/15 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:38 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> I dance. I dance a dance of being free to say I do so.
> >> A dance of freedom. A free-from-dumb dance. I dance.
> > Is that a Powerful Da
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:40 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I discussed this in an earlier post. A total disclaimer ("Any statements
> made in this message might be false.") certainly should disqualify a
> statement from operating as an action, because it means that the action
> hasn't ac
2008/7/16 Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Michael - and then you might drop partnerships too...
>
But partnerships are warm and fluffy, this is not.
Elliott Hird wrote:
>Now, the announcement that performs an action is obviously a statement. But it
>does not seem to imply that anything is true or false - at a stretch, we can
>say that it states that the action it purports to perform is successful.
That's precisely what it does state! It is a
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'm puzzled by the disclaimers issue.
>If you disclaim an action (those of you who claim that action statements
>can be false) wouldn't the disclaimer always cause it to fail? You can't
>have it both ways!
I discussed this in an earlier p
85 matches
Mail list logo
