by Unibot II » Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:44 pm
by Unibot II » Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:44 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Unibot II » Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:45 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Unibot II » Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:45 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Unibot II » Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:50 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Mousebumples » Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:02 pm
by Unibot II » Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:16 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Todd McCloud » Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:22 pm
by Unibot II » Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:44 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Rawrgirnia » Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:52 pm
by Mousebumples » Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:34 pm
Rawrgirnia wrote:Also, maybe something for those lovely proposals that do nothing except create a committee.
by Unibot II » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:07 am
Mousebumples wrote:Rawrgirnia wrote:Also, maybe something for those lovely proposals that do nothing except create a committee.
I suggest this one from the old UN cards:
Not that Unibot can't create a new card with the same message, but since once already exists, I don't know that we need another one ...
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Unibot II » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:23 am
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Rawrgirnia » Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:42 am
by Glen-Rhodes » Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:54 am
by Unibot II » Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:20 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:The best part about these are that they're unabashedly offensive.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Unibot II » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:15 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Jesoland wrote:Our primary argument is that this resolution is misleading and probably written in bad faith (id est, it was intentionally misleading in order to be approved): and the proof that it's misleading is the ambiguity about so-called "donations".
The confusing point is that a donation, to be true, must be two properties donations in GA#17 don't have:
1. The donor must be driven by animus donandi, id est he mustn't be required to do so
2. The donee can be required a service in return, but it mustn't exhaust the value of the donation. Requiring that any surplus is returned to member nations, it follows that WA doesn't enrich. And donee's enrichment is the second necessary condition for defining a donation.
So, those prescribed by GA#17 are donations neither de facto nor de jure.
You've brought a whole new meaning to the term "Dictionary Wars"!
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Grays Harbor » Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:24 pm
by A mean old man » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:57 pm
by Kryozerkia » Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:06 pm
by Glen-Rhodes » Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:05 pm
A mean old man wrote:Where are the "micromanagement" and "national sovereignty" cards?
by Unibot II » Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:18 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:40 pm
by Unibot II » Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:57 pm
A mean old man wrote:Where are the "micromanagement" and "national sovereignty" cards?
Kryozerkia wrote:I quite like this collection; I shall have to consider using one or two in future.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Entropan
Advertisement