On 4 Oct 2008, at 03:03, Taral wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:12 PM, ehird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why O.o?
(I'm younger than ihope, if O.o means you are young. :-P)
o.O
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
What
On 4 Oct 2008, at 00:31, ehird wrote:
On 4 Oct 2008, at 00:01, Dvorak Herring wrote:
I leave the Bayes Contract.
nttpf
--
ehird
To elaborate since you might not understand being new:
Next time to the Public Forum.
You sent it to a-d, but things only happen to a-b. :-P
--
ehird
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:26 AM, ehird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To elaborate since you might not understand being new:
Next time to the Public Forum.
Actually, not to the public forum. next time... would require an
additional t.
-root
On 4 Oct 2008, at 16:03, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:26 AM, ehird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To elaborate since you might not understand being new:
Next time to the Public Forum.
Actually, not to the public forum. next time... would require an
additional t.
-root
I was
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, ehird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What comes next? o.o or O.O?
O.O of course.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 4 Oct 2008, at 19:22, Dvorak Herring wrote:
I leave the Bayes Contract.
--
Dvorak Herring
Hooray! Thanks. Nothing personal, but now it can operate :-P
--
ehird
On 4 Oct 2008, at 19:07, Taral wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, ehird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What comes next? o.o or O.O?
O.O of course.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
o.o
--
ehird
On 4 Oct 2008, at 23:22, Bayes wrote:
Bayes votes as follows:
5740 PRESENT*2 (0.5)
5742 PRESENT*2 (0.5)
--
bayes 2008-10-04 23:21:33 +0100
... Well ain't that something.
--
ehird
On 4 Oct 2008, at 23:14, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
This distribution of proposals 5740-5745 initiates the Agoran
Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible voters for ordinary
proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic
proposals are the active
On 4 Oct 2008, at 23:24, ehird wrote:
On 4 Oct 2008, at 23:22, Bayes wrote:
Bayes votes as follows:
5740 PRESENT*2 (0.5)
5742 PRESENT*2 (0.5)
--
bayes 2008-10-04 23:21:33 +0100
... Well ain't that something.
--
ehird
Hummm. 'sabug, I'll fix it tomorrow.
--
ehird
On 4 Oct 2008, at 23:53, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 2:13 PM, ehird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4 Oct 2008, at 19:07, Taral wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, ehird
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What comes next? o.o or O.O?
O.O of course.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 6:39 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to the following:
{The name of this contract is The Llama Party.
Ah! Using the conditional vote mechanism is a lot better than the
complicated mechanisms I had envisioned for this requiring explicit
voting.
This is a
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 7:23 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Contract
Changes can be performed with the consent of a majority of Llamas;
this is the only way a person can join this contract.
Can I join?
That depends on how early your clade diverged from mine according to
my Agoran taxonomy
THIS IS A DRAFT -- improvements are welcome.
Previous CFJs have found that Phill was an alias for tusho (now
ehird): INSERT LIST HERE
This duplicate registration is a blatant violation of R2170. I DRAFT
rule GUILTY.
As noted by Murphy in eir support of filing this CFJ, the ninny did
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
= Criminal Case 2181 =
root broke Rule 2170 by making the statement I am comex..
Lacking any other argument,
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:03 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ihope and I have agreed to this contract:
{
1. The name of this contract is The Law-abiding Partnership.
2. This is a public contract and a partnership.
3. Parties to this contract SHALL ensure that this partnership follows
the
On Oct 4, 2008, at 9:10 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
THIS IS A DRAFT -- improvements are welcome.
Previous CFJs have found that Phill was an alias for tusho (now
ehird): INSERT LIST HERE
Self-note: The list in question is CFJs 2184 and 2185. Other
relevant CFJs are listed as open.
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On behalf of The Law-abiding Partnership:
{
The Law-abiding Partnership registers.
The Law-abiding Partnership claims, to Agora, that it is the ambassador.
}
An obvious breach of the contract, which we seem to have no means of
enforcing.
If it
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Oct 4, 2008, at 10:16 PM, ihope wrote:
I agree to the following: {This is a pledge. Ivan Hope CXXVII can
terminate this pledge at any time. The Thing Of Purely Sentimental
Value is a singleton asset whose recordkeepor is Ivan Hope CXXVII. If
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 20:41, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal, Partner Responsibility, AI-2:
--
Amend Rule 2145 by appending the following text:
If a judge finds a partnership
On Saturday 04 October 2008 01:07:11 pm Taral wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, ehird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What comes next? o.o or O.O?
O.O of course.
Eww, little-endianness?
On Saturday 04 October 2008 10:13:57 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On behalf of The Law-abiding Partnership:
{
The Law-abiding Partnership registers.
The Law-abiding Partnership claims, to Agora, that it is the
ambassador. }
An obvious breach of the
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On behalf of The Law-abiding Partnership:
{
The Law-abiding Partnership registers.
The Law-abiding Partnership claims, to Agora, that it is the ambassador.
}
An obvious breach of
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
It requires its parties to ensure that it obeys the rules. Back before
Take It To Equity, the partners could be prosecuted for the
partnership's rule breaches.
I still thing TITE was a bad idea.
I'll meet you halfway. I think TITE was the right thing
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
It doesn't enforce itself any less than any other partnership. If
this doesn't lead to an equity case, it's the partners that are at
fault, not the partnership.
Proof of the pudding and all that, a partnership is not just its
rules but its members. I
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
O.O of course.
Eww, little-endianness?
Unordered :P
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
26 matches
Mail list logo
