On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CoE: ehird has the patent title Plagiarist.
You realize that only has meaning for things that self-ratify, yes?
Tell that to the people who made CoEs when the term had absolutely no
definition in the Rules.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:40 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CoE: ehird has the patent title Plagiarist.
You realize that only has meaning for things that self-ratify, yes?
Tell that to the people who made CoEs when the
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:07 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TTttPF
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 21:06 +0100, ais523 wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 14:02 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 14:17 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:07 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TTttPF
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 21:06 +0100, ais523 wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 14:02 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm... patent titles aren't assets AFAIR, so the Herald probably isn't
the recordkeepor of them and so it probably doesn't self-ratify. But
CoEing is still useful due to the potential of deliberate ratification,
plus I think it's
5 matches
Mail list logo
