PolymarketI'm max i can afford in this i would prefer not to share my exact amount and pm profile publicly.
I'm max i can afford in this i would prefer not to share my exact amount and pm profile publicly.
pi参与话题 14消息总数 986
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 986 条，显示第 201-250 条Only argument N possibly can argue is "where is the news" but icao is the main resolution source, and icao issues notams
Only argument N possibly can argue is "where is the news" but icao is the main resolution source, and icao issues notams
Yes, previous time it was 4/5 major airports closed, this time 2/5 major closed. All other ones in west closed. It is qualifies by rules since 2/5 major one should be closed.
Yes, previous time it was 4/5 major airports closed, this time 2/5 major closed. All other ones in west closed. It is qualifies by rules since 2/5 major one should be closed.
NOTAMR means existing notam being updated. TLDR: Iran issued 2 notams. Both notams are closing 2/5 airports, 1 is replacing NOTAMR A1256/26 which previously was allowing operation of this 2 airports with nighttime restrictions. Other one replaced A1178/26, which updated overflight restrictions. Both new notams are active and under they operation 2/5 airports are completely closed. This 2 Notams were closing airspace for 2.5h. 20 minutes ago they were replaced with A1277/26 and A1276/26 extension NOTAMS, which makes total airspace closure 5+ hours already. Previous resolved airspace closure was around 5h, not like it does matter by rules.
NOTAMR means existing notam being updated. TLDR: Iran issued 2 notams. Both notams are closing 2/5 airports, 1 is replacing NOTAMR A1256/26 which previously was allowing operation of this 2 airports with nighttime restrictions. Other one replaced A1178/26, which updated overflight restrictions. Both new notams are active and under they operation 2/5 airports are completely closed. This 2 Notams were closing airspace for 2.5h. 20 minutes ago they were replaced with A1277/26 and A1276/26 extension NOTAMS, which makes total airspace closure 5+ hours already. Previous resolved airspace closure was around 5h, not like it does matter by rules.
TLDR: Iran issued 2 notams. Both notams are closing 2/5 airports, 1 is replacing NOTAMR A1256/26 which previously was allowing operation of this 2 airports with nighttime restrictions. Other one replaced A1178/26, which updated overflight restrictions. Both new notams are active and under they operation 2/5 major airports are completely closed and qualify by rules. All other airports in west are closed too. This 2 Notams were closing airspace for 2.5h. Later they were replaced with A1277/26 and A1276/26 extension NOTAMS, which makes total airspace closure 5+ hours already. Previous resolved airspace closure was around 5h, not like it does matter by rules.
TLDR: Iran issued 2 notams. Both notams are closing 2/5 airports, 1 is replacing NOTAMR A1256/26 which previously was allowing operation of this 2 airports with nighttime restrictions. Other one replaced A1178/26, which updated overflight restrictions. Both new notams are active and under they operation 2/5 major airports are completely closed and qualify by rules. All other airports in west are closed too. This 2 Notams were closing airspace for 2.5h. Later they were replaced with A1277/26 and A1276/26 extension NOTAMS, which makes total airspace closure 5+ hours already. Previous resolved airspace closure was around 5h, not like it does matter by rules.
people who doesnt read the rules
people who doesnt read the rules
Good way to get wrecked using flightradar to prove anything about airspace closure
Good way to get wrecked using flightradar to prove anything about airspace closure
GL with that
GL with that
The N argument is they dont have Iranian article with news which they will still not believe and will say they will deny it later. And that is NOTAM which is actually closes airspace and issued by main resolution source as result of their actions is not enough of proof.
The N argument is they dont have Iranian article with news which they will still not believe and will say they will deny it later. And that is NOTAM which is actually closes airspace and issued by main resolution source as result of their actions is not enough of proof.
How it is not resolution source?
How it is not resolution source?
Who do you think issues the notams?
Who do you think issues the notams?
Based on officially issued NOTAM which ICAA issued?
Based on officially issued NOTAM which ICAA issued?
Scam it's resolving market by rules?
Scam it's resolving market by rules?
He muted me, but we have explicit leak path for this market. The way it was reported by CNN is the only way it could resolve this market. Denying this way with lack of government approval considering it's LEAK would be insane
He muted me, but we have explicit leak path for this market. The way it was reported by CNN is the only way it could resolve this market. Denying this way with lack of government approval considering it's LEAK would be insane
We doesnt need government approval for the leak path. We just need it to be reported by the rules. "credibly reported as successor or original version of signed on 14th June agreement". We didn't had it for June 16th, but we have it for June 17
We doesnt need government approval for the leak path. We just need it to be reported by the rules. "credibly reported as successor or original version of signed on 14th June agreement". We didn't had it for June 16th, but we have it for June 17
i corrected, my bad
i corrected, my bad
bro but you flipped 2 times already it's truth
bro but you flipped 2 times already it's truth
"The supposed text of the MOU that was obtained by CNN does not reflect the language of the actual MOU." This doesnt even mean that this is not MOU which was signed. They changing it constantly, but the rules doesnt require the final version
"The supposed text of the MOU that was obtained by CNN does not reflect the language of the actual MOU." This doesnt even mean that this is not MOU which was signed. They changing it constantly, but the rules doesnt require the final version
I don't think we should involve our interpretation in it, it's about what is written. CNN reported all what is needed by rules. I don't really see how "leak" path for resolution should involve 100% government approval. It should be just reported by the rules to qualify > The 14-point memorandum of understanding has not yet been officially released but a** copy of it was obtained by CNN from a US official. A diplomat who saw it at the G7 summit in France this week confirmed its contents, as did two other diplomatic sources with knowledge of negotiations.** > > The US official told CNN that the text reflects the agreement signed digitally by President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on Sunday.
I don't think we should involve our interpretation in it, it's about what is written. CNN reported all what is needed by rules. I don't really see how "leak" path for resolution should involve 100% government approval. It should be just reported by the rules to qualify > The 14-point memorandum of understanding has not yet been officially released but a** copy of it was obtained by CNN from a US official. A diplomat who saw it at the G7 summit in France this week confirmed its contents, as did two other diplomatic sources with knowledge of negotiations.** > > The US official told CNN that the text reflects the agreement signed digitally by President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on Sunday.
I really do think if leak clause is ever should be used (and it is in the rules) this CNN case we have should be used to resolve. You will never get approval reaction from government officials on the leak, it should be just reported by rules written. And it is reported by the rules for the June 17
I really do think if leak clause is ever should be used (and it is in the rules) this CNN case we have should be used to resolve. You will never get approval reaction from government officials on the leak, it should be just reported by rules written. And it is reported by the rules for the June 17
This one was reported by rules, but was denied by the government as every leak should be
This one was reported by rules, but was denied by the government as every leak should be
yeah it is exactly what "leak" clause is covering in the rules TBH
yeah it is exactly what "leak" clause is covering in the rules TBH
june 17 rugged by steven
june 17 rugged by steven
It's exactly what i'm saying. https://discord.com/channels/710897173927297116/817444472009785366/1516763219446988911
It's exactly what i'm saying. https://discord.com/channels/710897173927297116/817444472009785366/1516763219446988911
It does not state they should leak both iranian and US versions, isnt it? CNN article states everything which was needed by rules which we didnt had on June 16
It does not state they should leak both iranian and US versions, isnt it? CNN article states everything which was needed by rules which we didnt had on June 16
What's the N argument for June 17?
What's the N argument for June 17?
I'm changing my June 17, 19, 30 uma arguments to P2
I'm changing my June 17, 19, 30 uma arguments to P2
For the June 16 we haven't credible reports which could confirm that the published text is the original text or successor version of the signed on 14th agreement. June 16 is a N. But for the June 17 we have CNN article which states: > The 14-point memorandum of understanding has not yet been officially released but a** copy of it was obtained by CNN from a US official. A diplomat who saw it at the G7 summit in France this week confirmed its contents, as did two other diplomatic sources with knowledge of negotiations.** > > The US official told CNN that the text reflects the agreement signed digitally by President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on Sunday. **The text shouldn't be final by rules**, it should be successor or original version of the signed on 14th agreement. We got confirmation we need for June 17 under the rules provided.
For the June 16 we haven't credible reports which could confirm that the published text is the original text or successor version of the signed on 14th agreement. June 16 is a N. But for the June 17 we have CNN article which states: > The 14-point memorandum of understanding has not yet been officially released but a** copy of it was obtained by CNN from a US official. A diplomat who saw it at the G7 summit in France this week confirmed its contents, as did two other diplomatic sources with knowledge of negotiations.** > > The US official told CNN that the text reflects the agreement signed digitally by President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on Sunday. **The text shouldn't be final by rules**, it should be successor or original version of the signed on 14th agreement. We got confirmation we need for June 17 under the rules provided.
If there is no answer it is N
If there is no answer it is N
There is one question needs to be answered "Is there is credible information which can prove that this drafts are the drafts of newer or the same version of agreement signed on 14th"
There is one question needs to be answered "Is there is credible information which can prove that this drafts are the drafts of newer or the same version of agreement signed on 14th"
and same cuckery will be applied
and same cuckery will be applied
cause it's the same kind of case, even rules are the same
cause it's the same kind of case, even rules are the same
just clarifying for you
just clarifying for you
if you didn't noticed i did it on purpose
if you didn't noticed i did it on purpose
you literally making clause about me which doesnt have anything to do with reality
you literally making clause about me which doesnt have anything to do with reality
"anything" is not an insult to me
"anything" is not an insult to me
cause you've got "not an insult" ai opinion
cause you've got "not an insult" ai opinion
this one is much stronger insult than infamous, cause infamous was not an insult refering to the cartel leader in the context of his message
this one is much stronger insult than infamous, cause infamous was not an insult refering to the cartel leader in the context of his message
nono
nono
i case of infamous we wasnt looking for ai opinion
i case of infamous we wasnt looking for ai opinion
wow now we are looking for ai opinion
wow now we are looking for ai opinion
even when interviewed on G7
even when interviewed on G7
he just feel the great need to mock someone casually
he just feel the great need to mock someone casually
yeah
yeah
this ace can be found in 1 minute though so not like some very sofisticated ace
this ace can be found in 1 minute though so not like some very sofisticated ace
don't buy no there is the ace
don't buy no there is the ace
If <@95759375464923136> | 🙂$0 Peace! wins this bet, he will transfer $960 to @thonker. If @thonker wins this bet, he will transfer $40 to <@95759375464923136> | 🙂$0 Peace! . Isnt it should be corrected? <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
If <@95759375464923136> | 🙂$0 Peace! wins this bet, he will transfer $960 to @thonker. If @thonker wins this bet, he will transfer $40 to <@95759375464923136> | 🙂$0 Peace! . Isnt it should be corrected? <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
It's just a rumors compilation, it's worse than bloomberg article for resolution
It's just a rumors compilation, it's worse than bloomberg article for resolution
"The MoU reportedly"
"The MoU reportedly"
Israel - Iran war goes on for 50 years
Israel - Iran war goes on for 50 years