On May 29, 2013, at 12:47 PM, John Smith wrote:
I initiate a criminal CfJ accusing Bucky of committing the class-3 crime of
Naughtiness (violating Rule 2356) when he sent the message whose body was I
taunt the police, specifying 3. on June 22nd, 2013.
Evidence: June 22, 2013 hasn't happened
On 29 May 2013 17:47, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
Also, for good measure, I CfJ (inquiry barring omd) on . This message
successfully initiated a criminal CfJ.
This seems like a malformed CFJ plus a possible lie.
On Wed, 29 May 2013, John Smith wrote:
I initiate a criminal CfJ accusing Bucky of committing the class-3 crime of
Naughtiness (violating Rule 2356) when he sent the
message whose body was I taunt the police, specifying 3. on June 22nd, 2013.
If you're looking for a not guilty now to
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
If you're looking for a not guilty now to immunize yourself from a guilty
later, that
doesn't work. R101 forbids multiple penalties, but not multiple trials.
There is a
specific precedent to this (I think I argued
On Wed, 29 May 2013, omd wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
If you're looking for a not guilty now to immunize yourself from a guilty
later, that
doesn't work. R101 forbids multiple penalties, but not multiple trials.
There is a
someone please clarify this i thought it said you CAN taunt the police or
maybe i am just not understanding naughtiness as a whole
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:47 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
I initiate a criminal CfJ accusing Bucky of committing the class-3 crime
of Naughtiness
You CAN taunt the police. It's just also a crime if you do. =P
Basically, it's a way making sure you'll respect a deal. To make
people sure that you won't do X, just make a promise that says I
taunt the police specifying 10, with the condition for cashing being
I did X. If you don't do X, all is
The difference between CANNOT and SHALL NOT is that CANNOT means that an action
is impossible, whereas SHALL NOT means that, although it may be possible, it is
nevertheless illegal. So taunting the police is both possible and illegal. The
usual example is that cars CANNOT fly, but they CAN
On May 29, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Got it. Seems like an easy counter argument though:
An event that could not yet have happened is not substantially the same
as one that could have. That has some measure of common sense, and
has some precedent too (eg no pre-objecting , as an
9 matches
Mail list logo
