On Sep 30, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On 9/30/07, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe 23 Jan 96 - 24 Sep 07 would be most accurate.
I think the 15 July 2000 - 24 Sep 2007 registration is ALSO correct,
due to the Annabel project (scam? goof?).
How is that? Annabel
On Sep 26, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
root wrote:
By the way, Murphy, could you please clear up your registration
history for me? The registrar's report currently lists the following
entries for you:
Murphy 28 Jan 96 97
v Murphy
On 9/30/07, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe 23 Jan 96 - 24 Sep 07 would be most accurate.
I think the 15 July 2000 - 24 Sep 2007 registration is ALSO correct,
due to the Annabel project (scam? goof?).
How is that? Annabel was Maud's creation, not Murphy's.
-root
On 9/23/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My
secondary reason for deregistering was to let First Speaker Michael
keep the record for longest continuous registration.
By the way, Murphy, could you please clear up your registration
history for me? The registrar's report currently lists the
root wrote:
On 9/23/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My
secondary reason for deregistering was to let First Speaker Michael
keep the record for longest continuous registration.
By the way, Murphy, could you please clear up your registration
history for me? The registrar's report
Eris wrote:
On 9/23/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goddess Eris 1 5 5 1R 2B
I should have 1 black VC, no?
You're right; your judgement on culpability was late, but your
judgement on sentencing wasn't (the ASAP timer didn't start
ticking until your
On 9/23/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eris wrote:
On 9/23/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goddess Eris 1 5 5 1R 2B
I should have 1 black VC, no?
You're right; your judgement on culpability was late, but your
judgement on sentencing
Taral wrote:
My judgement on culpability was late? I though I had to wait out the
pre-judgement period.
You are correct. You were not late.
-zefram
On Sunday 23 September 2007 22:05:21 Ed Murphy wrote:
I cause the AFO to publish the following.
You can't do that, having both deregistered and left the AFO. . .
Wait, never mind. You've not left the AFO, merely Human Point Two.
Peekee and pikhq belonged to the Gray Party.
Wrong. By Rule
Rule 1551 says, in part:
When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that
the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the
time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a
document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any
Ed Murphy wrote:
The recently ratified Assessor's Report lists two dependencies
on CFJ 1688 in the history (left untouched by the second sentence of
the above excerpt), but not in the totals (which may or may not be
affected by the first sentence):
I have interpreted these notes in the history as
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I recommend a proposal to clarify this paragraph of Rule 1551 (which
Proposal 5101 does not attempt to alter),
P5101 makes the scope of ratification clearer. What aspect of R1551 do
you think needs to be further clarified?
What happens if the ratified
Ed Murphy wrote:
Pineapple Partnership 1
Primo Corporation
etc.
It'd be a lot clearer if you used explicit 0 entries rather than blanks.
-zefram
13 matches
Mail list logo
