Okay, now it looks fine in your quote so I suppose I'll take it.
Though then there's the line "Does the further provision of" which just
cuts off for... some reason.
On 2017-10-31 10:53, VJ Rada wrote:
I actually see absolutely no difference between the start and the end.
I mean, I'm using t
I actually see absolutely no difference between the start and the end.
I mean, I'm using the "100% do not use this" gmail client so don't
really take my view into consideration.
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Madeline wrote:
> Is the formatting on this messed up towards the end for anyone els
Is the formatting on this messed up towards the end for anyone else? Not
sure what happened there.
On 2017-10-31 04:17, Alexis Hunt wrote:
These cases revolve around the interpretation of the following contract:
{
Any player may become a party to this contract by announcement.
This contract
Gotcha, thanks.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> E's judging that the document I ratified ratified GOD into existence
> but did not change the past to establish BOO.
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > Don't your arguments imply FALSE for CFJ 3571 (the CFJ
E's judging that the document I ratified ratified GOD into existence
but did not change the past to establish BOO.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Don't your arguments imply FALSE for CFJ 3571 (the CFJ statement is
> "G: Overlord of Dunce is an Agency.")
>
> On Sun, 15 O
Don't your arguments imply FALSE for CFJ 3571 (the CFJ statement is
"G: Overlord of Dunce is an Agency.")
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> I judge CFJ 3570 FALSE. I judge CFJ 3571 TRUE.
>
> First there's little doubt that "G is Overlord of Dunce" is not an
> agency, because the name is i
--- Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sherlock's judgements in 1616 and 1615 are reasonable.
Well, that's an unfortunate position. I was hoping for a rhyming appeal.
:)
Sherlock
No need to miss
Goethe wrote:
Sherlock's judgements in 1616 and 1615 are reasonable. OscarMeyr's
judgement in 1614 is reasonable. Unfortunately, they are in direct
opposition, so there's no clear precedent. Any ideas on whether an
appeals process is useful to resolve this?
I don't believe they're in opposi
Sherlock's judgements in 1616 and 1615 are reasonable. OscarMeyr's
judgement in 1614 is reasonable. Unfortunately, they are in direct
opposition, so there's no clear precedent. Any ideas on whether an
appeals process is useful to resolve this?
-Goethe
9 matches
Mail list logo
