I intended it to be an indirect quotation, but I'm not sure that will
hold up. If it doesn't I will resubmit the argument with the
correction.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:55 PM Corona wrote:
>
> Possibly INVALID: not referring to Agora properly, though this is an
> indirect speech quotation, so it
No, e should be "referred to as such", but I was addressing em.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:44 PM Corona wrote:
>
> This isn't related to this rule in particular, but isn't addressing you
> "Your Honor" illegal, given #6: "The Right Honourable
> Judge G. SHALL be referred to as such"?
>
> ~Corona
>
Possibly INVALID: not referring to Agora properly, though this is an
indirect speech quotation, so it may not count.
> error in the presentation of eir reasons for Agora's eksallance. In
>
This isn't related to this rule in particular, but isn't addressing you
"Your Honor" illegal, given #6: "The Right Honourable
Judge G. SHALL be referred to as such"?
~Corona
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> appears VALID (again, formal response later).
>
> On Wed, 11
appears VALID (again, formal response later).
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I present the following argument on the first docket to the court:
>
> Your Honor, My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada seems to have made a fatal
> error in the presentation of eir reasons
It's fine.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:16 AM Rebecca wrote:
>
> sorry
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "eksallance" is not a quirky spelling?
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:13 AM Rebecca wrote:
> > >
> > >
sorry
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "eksallance" is not a quirky spelling?
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:13 AM Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > The above rule is invalid: no quirky spelling
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at
"eksallance" is not a quirky spelling?
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:13 AM Rebecca wrote:
>
> The above rule is invalid: no quirky spelling
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I present the following argument on
The above rule is invalid: no quirky spelling
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I present the following argument on the first docket to the court:
>
> Your Honor, My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada seems to have made a
9 matches
Mail list logo
