On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Arguments:
>>
>> Judgement (of ALREADY TRIED) has already been reached in another
>> criminal case (this one) with the same defendant, the same rule, and
>> the same alleged act. Therefore the only appropriate judgement for
>> CFJ 2273 is ALREADY TRIED.
>
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the judgment of 2273 was appropriate at the time it was made. The
> fact that it would now be inappropriate does not change the fact that
> the judgment was appropriate at the time, and is therefore correct.
Yeah, I noticed th
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 9:58 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been
>>reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the
>>same rule, an
comex wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been
>>reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the
>>same rule, and substantially the same alleged act
>>
>> Sounds about
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2008, at 22:19, Michael Norrish wrote:
>
>> Perhaps this is because it's not much of a name.
>
> It was apparently assigned by a computer from their initials,
Whose initials?
...oh.
On 27 Nov 2008, at 22:19, Michael Norrish wrote:
Perhaps this is because it's not much of a name.
It was apparently assigned by a computer from their initials,
so that's not very surprising.
[[I change my nick to a9*&D(987([EMAIL PROTECTED](~``bz. My gender is !&%~F
vZ.]]
comex wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now can we get rid of Spivak?
I second this motion. It worked for B.
"they" is fine for unknown referents, but I'm not going to say "I
transfer a prop to ais523 because they did a fine job in their
judgemen
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> The infraction stuff is at...
>
> Ah, that's right. I have to admit I'm not crazy about the rest terminology
> at all; probably because I never liked notes and would prefer something
> independent for the day notes go away. If you're not proposing this
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> The contract reforms are at...
Thanks, I can see some good places to combine ideas. In particular, I
have no problem personally weakening equity even more than you did (there's
a better way to run contests than equity, partnerships shouldn't be equit
Goethe wrote:
> Can you point me to latest drafts of infraction reforms and also your
> contract reforms (hierarchy of types of enforceable contracts IIRC)?
> Happy to take a round as a coauthor for next drafts but I wasn't
> following earlier discussions fully...
The contract reforms are at
<
On 27 Nov 2008, at 19:02, Alexander Smith wrote:
I know a large number of people who refuse to run Mono for
philosophical reasons (although I'm not one of them). More
to the point, there's no version of it available for Mac
OS X, as far as I know.
there is. However, I support Wooble's idea to
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:30, Roger Hicks wrote:
> >> I can in my preferred language of choice.
> > VB.Net, right? Does "everywhere" include "non-Windows systems"?
> mono
I know a large number of people who r
Thanks. Was just interested in playing a nomic, I played a much smaller one
last year and it seemed like a bigger one could be fun.
And yeah I go by Siege in most places, I only frequent a couple boards
though so it might be someone else.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL P
13 matches
Mail list logo
