On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
require a detailed knowledge of how it works.) As non-Agorans are not
even necessarily subscribed to a public forum, it seems quite possible
that a non-Agoran could join an Agoran contract yet be unaware of the
equity system, and
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
require a detailed knowledge of how it works.) As non-Agorans are not
even necessarily subscribed to a public forum, it seems quite possible
that a non-Agoran could join an Agoran
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, e ruled that knowingly giving implicit consent, with obvious intent
that it be consent, was close enough to explicit that it could be
considered explicit.
E ruled, if we are to take
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Implicitly agreeing to a contract doesn't actually work, but one example
would be me posting to a-b (or better, putting into the ruleset):
{{{
This is a contract. Any player of Agora who does not opt out of this
contract in the
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Implicitly agreeing to a contract doesn't actually work, but one example
would be me posting to a-b (or better, putting into the ruleset):
{{{
This is a contract. Any player of Agora who does
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:13:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as
explicit?
Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ
1290. -Goethe
Reading the arguments on 1290, it seems that the
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ 1290.
-Goethe
Except that in this case, Judge solublefish repeatedly calls a message
Goethe sent for the sole purpose of (possibly) joining the Agora the
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:13:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as
explicit?
Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ
1290. -Goethe
Reading
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Implicitly agreeing to a contract doesn't actually work, but one example
would be me posting to a-b (or better, putting into
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, e ruled that knowingly giving implicit consent, with obvious intent
that it be consent, was close enough to explicit that it could be
considered explicit.
E ruled, if we are to take eir arguments literally, that all
10 matches
Mail list logo
