On Sun, 2024-09-01 at 03:02 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 9/1/24 02:58, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> > THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>
>
> So... is this sufficient under the new reporting standard? This isn't
> labeling the report as the "Rulekeepor's weekly report".
>
On second thought I'm happy to leave that finger unpointed
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 8:59 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:20 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 10:39 AM Jason Cobb via agora-official <
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:20 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 10:39 AM Jason Cobb via agora-official <
> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
> >
> > These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/
> >
> > Date of
Oh, another thing. https://agoranomic.org/ruleset is updated now with
the data about February 22nd's rulesets.
On 3/1/19 9:34 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
I worded my response poorly. When I said to check the archives on
agoranomic.org I really meant the mailman archives. The mail-archive
archives
I worded my response poorly. When I said to check the archives on
agoranomic.org I really meant the mailman archives. The mail-archive
archives are the ones that it falls through on. It is possible to remove
the login requirement -- I know because of other mailman lists I've
subscribed to do no
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 04:11, Reuben Staley wrote:
> The logical rulesets are very long documents. Lots of times, the rulesets
> slip through because of that. Check the archives on agoranomic.com. When I
> get around to updating the ruleset site, it'll also be there.
I'm sure you mean agoranomic.
The logical rulesets are very long documents. Lots of times, the rulesets
slip through because of that. Check the archives on agoranomic.com. When I
get around to updating the ruleset site, it'll also be there.
--
Trigon
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:07 James Cook I don't see this message in the publ
Indeed it is. I blame the gmail client. I was out of town at that point
and didn't think I was going to be back in town before the week was up.
I apologize for this misinformation; it was not intentional. I'm going
to submit a revision in a few minutes.
On 1/11/19 7:32 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 at 21:43 ATMunn wrote:
> Unofficial CoE: Miscelaneous is spelled wrong, it should be miscellaneous.
Noted, but I want to redo these categories anyhow.
Agreed - I've just been trying to get the dates right in my head, so was
noting it.
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 23:01 Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Meh. I don’t believe that’s rule-mandated information; don’t think it’s
> worth resubmitting for that.
>
> Gaelan
>
> On Jun 22, 2017, at 11:00 PM, Quazie wrot
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Oops, yes, I just copy/pasted 2139 text from the recent proposal
> and didn't notice it was a space short. Will fix for next copy.
>
> Extra spaces come when I'm fixing indenting probably, should probably
> add the filter to my script.
>
> T
Oops, yes, I just copy/pasted 2139 text from the recent proposal
and didn't notice it was a space short. Will fix for next copy.
Extra spaces come when I'm fixing indenting probably, should probably
add the filter to my script.
Thanks on both counts! Never worry about even smallest details in
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
So will I.
-scshunt
Replying without quoting at all is rather annoying, especially when
messages are coming in a day late in random order...
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Oh.
-Henri
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> It's right here. You supported it:
You have to follow up on intents, see Rule 1728.
It's right here. You supported it:
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:02 PM, omd wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
>> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause Rule 2138 to amend itself by
>> replacing any instance of "Interstellar" in its text and title to
>> "Interoffice".
>>
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> CoE: Rule 2138 was amended on 6 May 2014 so that any instance of
> "Interstellar" in its text and title was replaced with "Interoffice".
Denied. I do not see any message resolving that intent.
- obsequious maitre d'
So will I.
-scshunt
On Jun 7, 2014 11:32 AM, "Henri Bouchard" wrote:
>
> CoE: Rule 2138 was amended on 6 May 2014 so that any instance of
> "Interstellar" in its text and title was replaced with "Interoffice".
>
> -Henri
>
I'm voting Henri for IADoP.
-Henri
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:54 PM, omd wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 10:53 PM, woggle wrote:
>> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>
> It would be nice if this document contained a link to the online FLR...
>
> which apparently I never did. Oops. I thought I started doing that
> at some point.
I did d
I'd vote for it.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Proposal: All Clogged Up (AI 1, II 0, co-author BobTHJ)
> {
> H. Distributor Taral is requested to increase the size limit of the
> messages sent to the Agora mailing lists hosted at agoranomic.org to
> 512 kibibytes (524288 b
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I find this to be a reasonable compromise
>
> BobTHJ
Someone make a proposal?
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 05:33, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 5 January 2011 07:01, Taral wrote:
>> If there is no objection, yes, it can be raised.
>
> I object to 1 megabyte messages; perhaps 512 kilobytes at the maximum?
>
I find this to be a reasonable compromise
BobTHJ
On 5 January 2011 07:01, Taral wrote:
> If there is no objection, yes, it can be raised.
I object to 1 megabyte messages; perhaps 512 kilobytes at the maximum?
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Could the size limit just be increased to 1MB? That would solve the
> ruleset issue and most other large messages that get hung. In today's
> age it's hard to find an e-mail client that won't handle 1MB
> messages
If there is no objection,
On 4 January 2011 07:32, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Could the size limit just be increased to 1MB? That would solve the
> ruleset issue and most other large messages that get hung. In today's
> age it's hard to find an e-mail client that won't handle 1MB
> messages
That's like 150,000 words. Nonsen
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 22:19, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
> wrote:
>> Way to bypass the size limit. =)
>>
>> ~ Roujo
>
> Way to bypass a limit that does not need to be bypassed, as e could
> have just asked Taral?
>
Could the size limit just be increased to 1M
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
> Way to bypass the size limit. =)
>
> ~ Roujo
Way to bypass a limit that does not need to be bypassed, as e could
have just asked Taral?
28 matches
Mail list logo
