EVE Search - Mornington Crescent

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Mornington Crescent

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 40 post(s)

CCP Kalmukaru	Posted - 2008.07.08 14:01:00 - [61] Originally by: CCP Mephysto Of course it is, however 1992 Darwin Amendment allows it in this case. Which is good, because the 1992 Darwin Amendment also includes the 1991 International Mirror Points as an absolute. I invoke the third section of the Points and move to L'Enfant Plaza.

Suze'Rain Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.08 14:02:00 - [62] Originally by: CCP Mephysto That's a blatant use of the 1984 Shuttleworth review, You cad. should be ashamed of yourself Of course it is, however 1992 Darwin Amendment allows it in this case. You should know better than that. the '92 Darwin Amendment clearly states that the '84 Shuttleworth is only enforced when the '91 Cryer Rule has been announced. Or do you mean Darwin's December 31st '92 Glasgow Charity Hogmanay Ball Addendum? that Amendment was actually ratified after midnight, and few people remember the tournament clearly.

CCP Kalmukaru	Posted - 2008.07.08 14:07:00 - [63] Originally by: Suze'Rain Originally by: CCP Mephysto That's a blatant use of the 1984 Shuttleworth review, You cad. should be ashamed of yourself Of course it is, however 1992 Darwin Amendment allows it in this case. You should know better than that. the '92 Darwin Amendment clearly states that the '84 Shuttleworth is only enforced when the '91 Cryer Rule has been announced. Or do you mean Darwin's December 31st '92 Glasgow Charity Hogmanay Ball Addendum? that Amendment was actually ratified after midnight, and few people remember the tournament clearly. ..Which is why it's known as the 1993 Addendum - the 1992 Addendum was ratified well before midnight, and allows the 1984 Shuttleworth on Tuesdays during summer months.


CCP Lingorm C C P	Posted - 2008.07.08 14:11:00 - [64] Originally by: Suze'Rain You should know better than that. the '92 Darwin Amendment clearly states that the '84 Shuttleworth is only enforced when the '91 Cryer Rule has been announced. Or do you mean Darwin's December 31st '92 Glasgow Charity Hogmanay Ball Addendum? that Amendment was actually ratified after midnight, and few people remember the tournament clearly. If you mean the intoxication rule, mean that only rules sets ratified while the adjudicators where intoxicated, that was thrown out in the interests of rule readability and the fact that it resulted in all players ending up in Bletchly Park and giggling at the word Bletchly. So invoking the Morovian Cross-Over I move to Tooting Broadway. CCP Lingorm CCP Quality Assurance QA Engineering Team Leader Originally by: Lord Fitz Eve is to WoW as Wow is to an 8 player game of Unreal Tournament.

Suze'Rain Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.08 14:13:00 - [65] Ah, of course! there was me looking at the forums and forgetting they're in GMT. a finely played move. you've studied the third invitational Neumann-Bannister match, clearly. I'm quite rusty on the open invitational after the Glasgow hogmanay charity ball, as I was too busy as a student till around '97. the move stands as valid, I'd agree. Apologies for questioning it, though there is of course precident in the '88 Morton-Hill match. Shall we continue?

CCP Mephysto	Posted - 2008.07.08 14:14:00 - [66] Originally by: CCP Kalmukaru ..Which is why it's known as the 1993 Addendum - the 1992 Addendum was ratified well before midnight, and allows the 1984 Shuttleworth on Tuesdays during summer months. Does anyone have a copy of Morgan & Stanley's "A Decade in Review", published in 2000? I have been unable to find a copy in my local bookshop, but I believe it clarifies this discussion as Kalmukaru states above.

Suze'Rain Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.08 14:22:00 - [67] Originally by: CCP Mephysto Originally by: CCP Kalmukaru ..Which is why it's known as the 1993 Addendum - the 1992 Addendum was ratified well before midnight, and allows the 1984 Shuttleworth on Tuesdays during summer months. Does anyone have a copy of Morgan & Stanley's "A Decade in Review", published in 2000? I have been unable to find a copy in my local bookshop, but I believe it clarifies this discussion as Kalmukaru states above. It was withdrawn from print in 2006 following the Gibbons appeal. there's a significant grey area open to exploitation in the Woodford division, pave 328, para. C they're really getting sloppy these last two editions. the Winters "annual" is much more up to date withteh rule addendum, what with the internet making it harder to have consistent rules, the FIAoMC as a body is in shambles trying to keep up.

CCP Kalmukaru	Posted - 2008.07.08 14:28:00 - [68] Originally by: CCP Lingorm So invoking the Morovian Cross-Over I move to Tooting Broadway. I'm surprised that you'd leave a castling maneuver open - I propose that the train is paused at Knightsbridge and the imbibement reserves are broken out.


CCP Lingorm C C P	Posted - 2008.07.08 14:35:00 - [69] Edited by: CCP Lingorm on 08/07/2008 14:36:02 Originally by: CCP Kalmukaru Originally by: CCP Lingorm So invoking the Morovian Cross-Over I move to Tooting Broadway. I'm surprised that you'd leave a castling maneuver open - I propose that the train is paused at Knightsbridge and the imbibement reserves are broken out. And you fell for it ... Imbibement can only be called in sight of a Turkish repastment facility. Penalty and I do believe that allows to complete the move to Angel. CCP Lingorm CCP Quality Assurance QA Engineering Team Leader Originally by: Lord Fitz Eve is to WoW as Wow is to an 8 player game of Unreal Tournament.

Suze'Rain Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.08 14:37:00 - [70] Frm angel, I call a breif distraction to the slimes, and after getting sharked by something in rubber and fishnets, make a standard stumble to Elephant and Castle.
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.08 14:38:00 - [71] Gospel Oak. Now there is only one way to stop me getting to MC in three moves (other than getting there before me). Can you figure it out? __________________________ Quote: ...bored, skint, no charter, and a ship that looks like an explosion in a girder factory...
Suze'Rain Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.08 14:44:00 - [72] Originally by: ReaperOfSly Gospel Oak. Now there is only one way to stop me getting to MC in three moves (other than getting there before me). Can you figure it out? I have already cited the Willseden Junction Reverse clause on page two of this game, making Gospel Oak an illegal move. Even with the Smith-Disreali act of 1948 played, the 2001 print clearly states the invalidity.
Cinnander Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.07.08 16:41:00 - [73] Edited by: Cinnander on 08/07/2008 16:41:49 Edited by: Cinnander on 08/07/2008 16:41:34 I'm shocked no one has yet played the Featherworth-Royal Blocking move.... so I claim it, and I play The King's Road
Zanza Ke Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.08 18:24:00 - [74] For my first move, I will see your Featherworth-Royal Blocking move of The Kings Road and up the ante by bringing in an obscure clause (appendix 14 a, clause 67c) of the 2002 Palindromic Race Car Rules, the American Edition (obviously), and bring you over the pond to the Smithsonian station. The museums are excellent there and, for the most part, free of charge for admission. "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams
Blydchyld Caldari Galactic Extensive Enterprises	Posted - 2008.07.08 19:02:00 - [75] Edited by: Blydchyld on 08/07/2008 19:02:18 I sumbit my first and final finishing move. Elephant and castle -> Tooting bex. (But nice **** take of Bridge/Cribage) I LIKE ARK! The above post is my post and does not represent the views of any entity, If my views have upset you PM me
annoing Amarr MisFunk Inc. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.07.09 01:28:00 - [76] Edited by: annoing on 09/07/2008 01:29:32 Originally by: Blydchyld Edited by: Blydchyld on 08/07/2008 19:02:18 I sumbit my first and final finishing move. Elephant and castle -> Tooting bex. A well played move and under normal circumstances I would applaud your ingenuity. However, as you (in your rush to impress) forgot all about the Farquar-Foookque Manouver which clearly states (on page 5, paragragh 4, amendment 11 sub-clause 22b) that any Tooting is dissallowed during months with a Y in the spelling, your move is consequently removed. However, I believe that Elephant and Castle to Bond Steet is a called for. This gambit is clearly allowed under Diggerys Bogbrush Gambit (1922, amended 1944, 1966, 1988, 2010 - official Nvolds version). Dwi Cymraig
Lokisson Amarr Celestial Horizon Corp.	Posted - 2008.07.09 01:38:00 - [77] Originally by: annoing A well played move and under normal circumstances I would applaud your ingenuity. However, as you (in your rush to impress) forgot all about the Farquar-Foookque Manouver which clearly states (on page 5, paragragh 4, amendment 11 sub-clause 22b) that any Tooting is dissallowed during months with a Y in the spelling, your move is consequently removed. However, I believe that Elephant and Castle to Bond Steet is a called for. This gambit is clearly allowed under Diggerys Bogbrush Gambit (1922, amended 1944, 1966, 1988, 2010 - official Nvolds version). I thought that had been disallowed following the repercussive textive integration back in '05? Especially considering the circumstances of the 2010 version... Either way, I call a move to Baker Street, it seeming most manageable at this time. And NO, I will not hear of dissallowance under the Brakean Systemic rules!
Ben Sterlinger Caldari Celestial Horizon Corp. Celestial Industrial Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.09 07:14:00 - [78] k, im unsure if this is the the right move, but i think that Edinburgh Fringe turnover hasent been used yet, making me able to join according to '70 rules right? That however, leaves only one option atm. Hatton Cross. "Thats not a knife, THIS is a knife!" Agent Runners Department

CCP Lingorm C C P	Posted - 2008.07.09 09:19:00 - [79] Upminster seems the logical move here and I should also note : Boxing. If you haven't figured it out. CCP Lingorm CCP Quality Assurance QA Engineering Team Leader Originally by: Lord Fitz Eve is to WoW as Wow is to an 8 player game of Unreal Tournament.


CCP Mephysto	Posted - 2008.07.09 09:58:00 - [80] Camden Town, as per the King James II court rules.


CCP Kalmukaru	Posted - 2008.07.09 10:34:00 - [81] Originally by: CCP Mephysto Camden Town, as per the King James II court rules. The only logical move at this point, then, is North Kenton, set by precedent in the Civic Planning Commission appendix of the 2007 analysis of the 1997 Guilford Invitational.

Taihira	Posted - 2008.07.09 11:48:00 - [82] Originally by: CCP Mephysto Camden Town, as per the King James II court rules. King James II of Scotland, or James II of England (who was also VII of scotland)? Going back to the James II of scotland rules are tricky, from the interpretation of doric records. the translation for the Morntoun Ceyscynt manucript (Scottish National Library MS i.56) has been difficult since the 1715 fire, and Boswell's transcript is considered inaccurate by modern linguists....
Lokisson Amarr Celestial Horizon Corp.	Posted - 2008.07.09 12:48:00 - [83] Originally by: CCP Kalmukaru The only logical move at this point, then, is North Kenton, set by precedent in the Civic Planning Commission appendix of the 2007 analysis of the 1997 Guilford Invitational. Kenton is an interesting gambit. Where are you going with that I wonder? Still, in that age old classic set by His Holiness in 1936, it should prove entertaining to continue onto Canons Park. To be entirely honest I've been dying to try that little one out for a few years now, but never quite foud myself in the right position.
Zanza Ke Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.07.09 16:01:00 - [84] Originally by: Taihira Originally by: CCP Mephysto Camden Town, as per the King James II court rules. King James II of Scotland, or James II of England (who was also VII of scotland)? Going back to the James II of scotland rules are tricky, from the interpretation of doric records. the translation for the Morntoun Ceyscynt manucript (Scottish National Library MS i.56) has been difficult since the 1715 fire, and Boswell's transcript is considered inaccurate by modern linguists.... I would have to say that the James II of England rules should be considered invalid due to his tossing of the royal seal into the Thames. If his rule was considered at an end, so should his rules. Any move made based on them should be considered terribly gauche. With that in mind, I would also say that any rules edition stemming from the court of Charles I or Edward VIII be considered invalid as well due to bouts of regicide and abdication respectively. Now, using the Restoration rules of Charles II, I say a move to Ravenscourt Park would fit the bill quite nicely. "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams

CCP Mephysto	Posted - 2008.07.09 17:01:00 - [85] Well, I see noone has respect for the traditional rules anymore. A pity. I reverse sidestep to Chancery Lane.

Zanza Ke Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.07.09 17:13:00 - [86] I respect traditional rules and have studied them at length. This is why your move to Chancery Lane after Ravenscourt Park is invalid. According to the Tudor Court rules, set forth by Henry VIII just after he had finished his period of mourning for his beloved third wife (really, there were tears), one cannot jump the track in such a manner. In deference to your desire to stick to traditional rules, I will make my move according to Regency Rules as seen on page 1007ii in the appendix and move to the White City station where I will, with any luck, be welcomed by the clear ringing of silver trumpets. "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams
Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2008.07.09 18:00:00 - [87] wtf?
annoing Amarr MisFunk Inc. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.07.09 18:46:00 - [88] White City is a fair move, I congratulate you on your playstyle. This obviously leaves me with only one option, therefore I invoke (for the traditionalists amongst you) Nvolds Sidestep-Sweep and jump straight to Walthamstow. Dwi Cymraig
Asharee Intrefer	Posted - 2008.07.09 19:06:00 - [89] Moving from White City to Walthamstow is, as anyone who bothers to keep up should know, totally unacceptable. The revised amendment to the 2008 Brigsby/Singh brief clearly states that any move further east than Whitechapel is impossible in view of the preceding turns. I take that move, and sincerely hope the player before me acknowledges that his deviation requires him to stay out of play until the Northern line has been crossed twice.
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.09 19:43:00 - [90] Originally by: Asharee Intrefer Moving from White City to Walthamstow is, as anyone who bothers to keep up should know, totally unacceptable. The revised amendment to the 2008 Brigsby/Singh brief clearly states that any move further east than Whitechapel is impossible in view of the preceding turns. I take that move, and sincerely hope the player before me acknowledges that his deviation requires him to stay out of play until the Northern line has been crossed twice. Actually, that amendment was revoked 36 minutes after it was ratified, in view of the overly restrictive nature of said amendment. Now take into account that we're still using the standard Hodgkin's rule set which precludes amendments (for the sake of simplicity) made after 2002. Don't you feel like a wally now? Now, I move to Langdon Park. __________________________ Quote: ...bored, skint, no charter, and a ship that looks like an explosion in a girder factory...

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.