On 3/7/2019 4:08 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I CoE this attempted distribution because the proposal is not in the
proposal pool.
I'm not sure this did what you think it did. With this phrasing, the
document you've identified as in doubt (as per R2201) is the distribution
attempt. You gave the
> On Mar 7, 2019, at 7:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Well, it's trivial unless the judge holds onto it until the retroactive
> effects go into effect :).
ಠ_ಠ
On 3/7/2019 4:18 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I'm sorry, our messages crossed. I think it will be trivially determinable from
my judgement to 3723 though.
-twg
Well, it's trivial unless the judge holds onto it until the retroactive
effects go into effect :). No worries tho!
On Mar 7, 2019, at 7:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>
>> You've missed an important point which will be elaborated on in my judgement
>> of CFJ 3723. ATMunn did SPOOKILY distribute Proposal 8164, but it was
>> nevertheless in the proposal
> On Mar 7, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> You've missed an important point which will be elaborated on in my judgement
> of CFJ 3723. ATMunn did SPOOKILY distribute Proposal 8164, but it was
> nevertheless in the proposal pool when Aris redistributed it just now. I know
>
I'm sorry, our messages crossed. I think it will be trivially determinable from
my judgement to 3723 though.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, March 8, 2019 12:12 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I favor this case.
>
> On 3/7/2019 4:08 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> > I CoE this
6 matches
Mail list logo
