On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
I dunno, I hear cats are quite proficient at using keyboards.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
I think you mean "sleeping on keyboards".
I fail to see how sleeping on is not using.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
>
> Davy I may, however, struggle with the requirement to be generally
>> capable of communicating via email.
>>
>
> I dunno, I hear cats are quite proficient at using keyboards.
>
> Greetings,
> Ø
On 31/07/2013 7:59 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
Davy I may, however, struggle with the requirement to be generally
capable of communicating via email.
I dunno, I hear cats are quite proficient at using keyboards.
And it's impressive how badly a lot of
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
Davy I may, however, struggle with the requirement to be generally
capable of communicating via email.
I dunno, I hear cats are quite proficient at using keyboards.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Fool wrote:
> How rule 101 might HAVE been interpreted, past tense. Your proposal passed.
> Hey, wasn't my idea...
Good point.
On 29/07/2013 5:48 PM, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Fool wrote:
In the name of Davy I, Queen of Agora Nomic, CAT 24, and her other realms, I
cause the new rule created by proposal 7537 to amend itself to read:
Hmm... it is interesting how Rule 101 (iv) might be interpreted in
v
On Dec 23, 2012 10:21 PM, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2012, Tanner Swett wrote:
> > I intend, with 2 support, to add the following definitions to the
Dictionary:
> >
> > {
> > "rabble": "All words following the word 'rabble' in this message are
> > to be interpreted without regar
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2008, at 15:09, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> E made many bad (read: "illegal") interpretations. Another was defining
>> "reasonable time for response" as "3 minutes". The reason it all worked
>> is that the rules made emself, as the judge, the fina
On 17 Nov 2008, at 15:09, Kerim Aydin wrote:
E made many bad (read: "illegal") interpretations. Another was
defining
"reasonable time for response" as "3 minutes". The reason it all
worked
is that the rules made emself, as the judge, the final arbiter of
eir own
interpretations, with no
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Sgeo wrote:
> Wasn't that Lindrum's justification in Nomic World for why e didn't
> require proposals to change rules? Since a rule saying "Only proposals
> can change rules" had the word "Initially"?
E made many bad (read: "illegal") interpretations. Another was defining
"r
Wasn't that Lindrum's justification in Nomic World for why e didn't
require proposals to change rules? Since a rule saying "Only proposals
can change rules" had the word "Initially"?
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another point in R2156's favor is R2162: "If an instance of a switch
> would otherwise fail to have a possible value, it comes to have its
> default value." As soon as R2126 made an instantaneous change of
> comex's VP to a v
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I'm not aware of any precise precedent when there's a conflict
> between a continuous defined state and an instantaneous change.
>
> R2156 defines voting limit continuously:
> The voting limit of an eligible voter
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 2008/11/17 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Aha. I initiate an inquiry case on the following statement,
>>> disqualifying comex:
>>>
>>> Neither Proposal 5956 nor Proposal 5962 has been adopted.
>>
>> Arguments:
>>
>> Strong precedent is that one-of
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Surely these are ineffective because they don't have those notes?
>>
>> They (in the
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Surely these are ineffective because they don't have those notes?
>
> They (in theory) gained them at the end of the week (i.e. 00:00) due
> to the spam propo
2008/11/17 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What strong precedent? I don't remember that clause being invoked
> even once (until now) since it was enacted.
>
>
Well, the precedent caused by it being voted in with that intention? Just
saying.
Anyway I think that the definition of voting limit is
ehird wrote:
> 2008/11/17 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Aha. I initiate an inquiry case on the following statement,
>> disqualifying comex:
>>
>> Neither Proposal 5956 nor Proposal 5962 has been adopted.
>
> Arguments:
>
> Strong precedent is that one-off increases work.
What strong p
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Surely these are ineffective because they don't have those notes?
They (in theory) gained them at the end of the week (i.e. 00:00) due
to the spam proposals passing. This was, of course, the purpose of
them, and the reason th
19 matches
Mail list logo
