On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
The AFO spends E E to remove one of my Rests.
The AFO spends E E to remove one of my Rests.
One of these probably failed, pending the outcome of CFJ 2366 (which
I'm fairly likely to judge FALSE since as far as I can tell
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 08:54 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
The AFO spends E E to remove one of my Rests.
The AFO spends E E to remove one of my Rests.
One of these probably failed, pending the outcome of CFJ 2366 (which
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
While I'm still, in my Strict Interpretation philosophy, convinced
that the is in R2156 means is and not starts at, subject to
modification by spending Notes, and while language supporting the
latter was added and subsequently removed from R2156
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 10:12 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
While I'm still, in my Strict Interpretation philosophy, convinced
that the is in R2156 means is and not starts at, subject to
modification by spending Notes, and while language supporting the
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 12:17 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
== CFJ 2365 ==
Rule 2238 exists.
While I'm still, in my Strict Interpretation philosophy,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
Well, it's definitely TRUE now. The proposal results in question just
self-ratified.
Ah. Was this a case of the caller purposefully phrased the question
so as not to directly challenge the results of the proposal? Gotta
learn to watch for those. -g.
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
This started an entirely new self-ratification period. Note that this
requires the document to be challenged again to prevent it
self-ratifying. We're one week past the denial now, and it wasn't
challenged during that time; any challenges that might have
I have been browsing the FLR and do not seems to fully understand the
adoption indexes of proposals. Aside from maintenance proposals (which have
an AI of 1), are adoption indexes arbitrary?
-Yally
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 16:29 -0600, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I have been browsing the FLR and do not seems to fully understand the
adoption indexes of proposals. Aside from maintenance proposals (which
have an AI of 1), are adoption indexes arbitrary?
Adoption indexes affect what the proposal can
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been browsing the FLR and do not seems to fully understand the
adoption indexes of proposals. Aside from maintenance proposals (which have
an AI of 1), are adoption indexes arbitrary?
Power=N rules can only
Thanks.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 4:36 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have been browsing the FLR and do not seems to fully understand the
adoption indexes of proposals. Aside from maintenance proposals (which
Delivered-To: penguinoftheg...@gmail.com
Received: by 10.181.134.15 with SMTP id l15cs70502bkn;
Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:01:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.143.14 with SMTP id q14mr2135590and.47.1234310468784;
Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:01:08 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 6:48 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
Test, test, test, test, test, test.
I support.
Sorry, that's the last test. Cron's been acting up.
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
I hereby modify the text of Proposal 6072 (which would have been failed
due to insufficient power anyway, btw) to read:
Oops, did I miss the place where registration status was secured (I looked
for it but did so quickly). -G.
14 matches
Mail list logo
