Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Notary] Report (null)

Alex Smith on Wed, 20 May 2009 05:50:47 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Notary] Report (null)

To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Notary] Report (null)
From: Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 13:50:42 +0100
In-reply-to: <653283240905200548s1c2c4abo20737a835c352574@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <56732cfd0905181422r3c6ee5edia93469c864b45999@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <7db5cba20905191601q7e95721aq5831bfa99c83b770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <653283240905200423l69283b4eg856f45db7e069b46@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1242820894.4735.5.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <653283240905200548s1c2c4abo20737a835c352574@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 08:48 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Umm... does act-on-behalf even work in B? Agoran precedent is that it
> > does, but I see no rules reason to allow it here.
> 
> It's inherent in the R101 rights of partnerships.  Or something.

I was never convinced, yet never managed to get the precedent
overturned.

-- 
ais523

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Notary] Report (null)
  - From: Kerim Aydin

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Notary] Report (null)
  - From: Geoffrey Spear
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Notary] Report (null)
  - From: Alex Smith
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Notary] Report (null)
  - From: Geoffrey Spear

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Notary] Report (null)
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Janitor] Cleaning
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Notary] Report (null)
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Notary] Report (null)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread