On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 18 April 2011 03:06, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote:
replace candidate with first-class candidate and i think its right.
The president is much harder to get to vote.
Good. It'd be a terrible
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Tanner Swett wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 18 April 2011 03:06, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote:
replace candidate with first-class candidate and i think its right.
The president is much harder to
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Tanner Swett wrote:
I disagree with that last point. I was a candidate in the recent
Scorekeepor election, and at the moment, I don't know if I won or not.
It would have been better for the game
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Tanner Swett wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Tanner Swett wrote:
I disagree with that last point. I was a candidate in the recent
Scorekeepor election, and at the moment, I don't know if I won or
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 16:13 -0400, omd wrote:
(a) a list of such intents could easily be found by performing a
search for intend (all but two players use either Gmail or Yahoo,
which are searchable, and I trust that G. and Murphy have some method
to search their email);
False assumption here,
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 16:13 -0400, omd wrote:
(a) a list of such intents could easily be found by performing a
search for intend (all but two players use either Gmail or Yahoo,
which are searchable, and I trust that G. and Murphy have some method
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 22:23, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
[Trivia: This is the 21st case in the database with two
appeals. Only one, CFJ 1966, has had three.]
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3004b
Appeal 3004b
Yally wrote:
Note that because appeal a was judged AFFIRM, the sentence of TIME OUT
has already been reassigned. Thus, judging this case AFFIRM would be
violating my R101 right to not be punished more than once for a single
action as I would receive two TIME OUT sentences from the same case.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 23:39, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Yally wrote:
Note that because appeal a was judged AFFIRM, the sentence of TIME OUT
has already been reassigned. Thus, judging this case AFFIRM would be
violating my R101 right to not be punished more than once for a
9 matches
Mail list logo
