Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime

comex on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 18:38:28 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime

To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime
From: comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 18:47:40 -0500
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=H7SAl5E+hwTn9st+8KVahEr9IJ7lP0KZLi5IOql3xEs=; b=LcXkAzxnlFMgef4X1U2xtNbxfi8msD3y7AILJbEJxT3x4v1cu0CZH7ThxWrbK1+RzZ hWiKVjiiEDiNfdkhYtuByD7ShxQlQzb83Nby/P394JDL/qqc18Eo7aJxZSLP54GboPgZ WR8z4bbOcRQJ9DbBJdeWNXyW5b2xfvXdBD5eg=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=YEI7a4sobe30IudFVpAlztZGgXPrAhdffoo25ygKoNC/JSqkps8BUZ883VC/R8ML86 kTJek8ksf5l93qrxVyovSeO2d/clRjGid6xlf7R7b7kGXD/uwGm/iSh3Tz+n9ZQKihfl gbd8tbBOTJ9P+hAWpX+nSnCWBkJGZQqOW01nA=
In-reply-to: <759211.97507.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <AANLkTi=pXagnyQu5QSh0vvVE7Nc-s7KAMtYXj0F9fvLZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <AANLkTi=Ltd2yvMgkXXte5q6xJG5vZFRdgHWBmJf+8EQr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <304978.65463.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <759211.97507.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Gabriel Vistica <gvistica@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Per Rule 15, paragraph 2, an obvious variant of the voting options may be
> substituted for the actual choice, so that "sure", "nope", etc, will be
> acceptable. However, if the choice made is not obvious, it is treated as an
> Abstain.

Yes; however, "true" and "false" are explicitly allowed by the rule about CFIs.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime
  - From: Gabriel Vistica

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread