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

Geoffrey Spear on Wed, 20 May 2009 05:48:13 -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: Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 08:48:08 -0400
In-reply-to: <1242820894.4735.5.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <56732cfd0905181422r3c6ee5edia93469c864b45999@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <7db5cba20905191601q7e95721aq5831bfa99c83b770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <653283240905200423l69283b4eg856f45db7e069b46@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1242820894.4735.5.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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.
-- 
Wooble
_______________________________________________
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: Alex Smith

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

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Notary] Report (null)
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Notary] Report (null)
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