Arguments on whatever CFJs:
In this case, I think it's reasonably clear that this message's purported
author is "Sam". It's also reasonably clear that "Sam" is purported to be a
different person from Walker. If we decide it's ambiguous whether the purported
author is Walker or Sam-not-Walker, t
On Aug 15, 2013, at 1:33 PM, Joe Stefek wrote:
> I revoke the promise entitled "Moar Zombies!".
You can only revoke promises With Notice.
—Machiavelli
Ahh, I missed that bit when reading, I shall do so.
Thanks.
--aperfectring
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2013, at 1:33 PM, Joe Stefek wrote:
> > I revoke the promise entitled "Moar Zombies!".
>
> You can only revoke promises With Notice.
>
> —Machiavelli
>
Brief further arguments: I think GUILTY is wholly inappropriate on 3383, as
Fool had no way of knowing eir actions would be considered to violate Rule 101.
At most, it would be appropriate to declare his actions illegal and then judge
NOT GUILTY.
—Machiavelli
On 17 Aug 2013 19:37, "Tanner Swett" wrote:
>
> Brief further arguments: I think GUILTY is wholly inappropriate on 3383,
as Fool had no way of knowing eir actions would be considered to violate
Rule 101. At most, it would be appropriate to declare his actions illegal
and then judge NOT GUILTY.
>
>
On 8/15/13 14:49 , Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013, woggle wrote:
>
>> HORTON'S WEEKLY REPORT
>>
>> Date of this report: 2013-08-10
>> Date of last report: 2013-08-03
>>
>> ###
>> Quantity: 1 (disputed; under CFJ)
6 matches
Mail list logo