scshunt wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com
mailto:emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
7385 3.0 Ordinary scshunt New Beginnings
AGAINST
Care to provide an explanation?
Mostly tl;dr as soon as I saw third-class. Having re-read it a
little
On 11 April 2013 18:04, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I don't understand that either. For years it was the most strongly
defended-against thing out there. Now people say, eh, maybe it will
be somehow interesting. I don't get that particularly.
I think dictatorship scams would be
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 11 April 2013 18:04, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I don't understand that either. For years it was the most strongly
defended-against thing out there. Now people say, eh, maybe it will
be somehow interesting. I don't get that
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
We vote AGAINST. Perhaps it's because we missed the enacting of Rule
2380, but we were not amused by this scam, and amusement is important
to us. We reserve the right to change our vote should amusement
materialize
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Tysger B. tysg...@gmail.com wrote:
I support.
It's not clear whether you're supporting both intents, or just one or
the other (although, since you're not an Elder, it would be reasonable
to assume you're supporting only the second intent). (Also, messages
sent to
5 matches
Mail list logo
