Re: [s-d] [s-b] [change] Ballot for nweek 161 - 24 Dec 2009.

[James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:51:50 -0600
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] [change] Ballot for nweek 161 - 24 Dec 2009.
> 
> 
> On Dec 31, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Craig Daniel wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> No, Objnomic turned it off:
> >> http://b.nomic.net/index.php?title=Clock_automatic&direction=prev&oldid=11874
> >> 
> >> Then you turned it on:
> >> http://b.nomic.net/index.php?title=Clock_automatic&direction=next&oldid=11873
> >> 
> >> Both those events occurred on 24 December, the clock wasn't incremented in between.
> > 
> > This fixes some things - at least maybe. I CFI on the following
> > statement: "The purported distribution of a ballot on or about
> > Rushnight of the current nweek constitutes recognition of all
> > proposals mentioned."
> > 
> > Arguments: since it clearly wasn't a valid ballot but did assign
> > numbers to all the proposals, I think this is clearly TRUE.
> > 
> > - teucer
> 
> Additionally, if this is clearly TRUE (and I think it is), then we are still on David nweek 160 and I am obliged to distribute a ballot.


Nweek 161 actually but, yes, that that would be correct. 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Have more than one Hotmail account? Link them together to easily access both
 http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394591/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss