On Jul 15, 2013, at 4:57 PM, John Smith wrote:
Did you miss the point of the arguments?
no interpretation of Agoran law or
binding agreement may substantially limit
= interpretations of Agoran law or
binding agreement MAY NOT substantially limit
= Substantially limiting is
Bucky wrote:
Did you miss the point of the arguments?
no interpretation of Agoran law or
binding agreement may substantially limit
= interpretations of Agoran law or
binding agreement MAY NOT substantially limit
= Substantially limiting is ILLEGAL
may != MAY
Walker wrote:
Have we ever interacted with non-players other than Bucky?
I deregistered for about a month during the partnership era, while
continuing to act via the AFO partnership (basically any partner
can unilaterally cause the partnership to act by announcement).
John Smith wrote:
If I were a player, I'd call for reconsideration. But since I'm not,
could someone else please do so?
You should register.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:57 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
Did you miss the point of the arguments?
no interpretation of Agoran law or
binding agreement may substantially limit
= interpretations of Agoran law or
binding agreement MAY NOT substantially limit
=
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:31 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
I suppose I should have added a Rule 217 quote to my Evidence:
Differences in... capitalization... are generally inconsequential in
interpreting rules or communications.
If I were a player, I'd call for reconsideration.
6 matches
Mail list logo
