Advertisement
by Grays Harbor » Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:01 pm
by The Walden Estates » Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:02 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:The Walden Estates wrote:I think because there was a grammatical error in it (I misspelled disspossessed), and maybe for strength violation? I'm not sure. They're going to post soon.
No, I think you misunderstood the telegram. I was slow to post here after the removal because I was spellchecking my post when I saw your GHR.
by Poree » Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:06 pm
by The Walden Estates » Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:11 pm
Poree wrote:So in the end, as many representatives had attempted to point out, the proposal was not a legal one?
Sarah Woodman
Representative of The Empire of Poree
by The Walden Estates » Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:12 pm
by Sionis Prioratus » Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:16 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:This and the other clause imply that the number of persons to a union is left to the member state, which could be two or more, or none if marriage is non-existent.
by The Walden Estates » Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:23 pm
by Kryozerkia » Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:27 pm
The Walden Estates wrote:This brings up an important question: if moderation did not notice the illegality of this proposal until it was pointed out to them by the honorable ambassador from Sionis Prioratus, how many other proposals have gone to vote and actually been passed that have similar contradictions? We recognize that although moderation does an excellent job at catching illegalities and are to be applauded for such diligent work, they are not omnipotent.
by Enn » Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:11 pm
The Walden Estates wrote:This brings up an important question: if moderation did not notice the illegality of this proposal until it was pointed out to them by the honorable ambassador from Sionis Prioratus, how many other proposals have gone to vote and actually been passed that have similar contradictions? We recognize that although moderation does an excellent job at catching illegalities and are to be applauded for such diligent work, they are not omnipotent.
And does this mean ever proposal should have as diligent opposition as this one did, so as to increase the probability of finding an illegality and thus making WA law better?
by The Walden Estates » Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:35 pm
by Arumdaum » Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:37 pm
Grays Harbor wrote:We can not support this narrow-minded view.
by Linux and the X » Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:39 pm
by The Walden Estates » Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:42 pm
by Grays Harbor » Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:52 pm
The Walden Estates wrote:
Boing! Boing! *Can the ambassador from Greys Harbor please take his head back.* Yes those are gnomes melting into the ceiling.
by The Walden Estates » Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:06 pm
Grays Harbor wrote:The Walden Estates wrote:
Boing! Boing! *Can the ambassador from Greys Harbor please take his head back.* Yes those are gnomes melting into the ceiling.
"Beth yw'r uffern ydych chi'n siarad am? My point, which you are refering to, was 4 days ago. While debate on this travesty was still ongoing." *shakes head* "Yr wyf yn dechrau credu bod dueling yn syniad iawn a dylid dal i fod cyfreithiol."
by A mean old man » Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:10 pm
by The Walden Estates » Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:22 pm
A mean old man wrote:Actually, that's the native language of Grays Harbor. You'll come in contact with it quite often if you kick around in the GA forums for long enough.
OOC: No joke, it is.
by Grays Harbor » Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:25 pm
The Walden Estates wrote:A mean old man wrote:Actually, that's the native language of Grays Harbor. You'll come in contact with it quite often if you kick around in the GA forums for long enough.
OOC: No joke, it is.
Interesting.
OOC: Is Grey's harbor a real place then? Where they speak this celtic looking langauge?
by NERVUN » Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:01 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement