On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 25 Sep 2008, at 17:57, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Not only did e try this before, but e was specifically warned that >> it was a breach of trust, the severity of it was pointed out, and the >> Rules were changed as a result to amplify that this was a breach of trust. >> This was done knowingly, willingly, and directly, and with what should >> have been a strong understanding of its severity. Still, I would say >> that 90 days would be sufficient, though frankly I have no faith that >> e wouldn't just show up again under another guise. -Goethe > > You have my word that I would fully serve out an EXILE sentence, but > considering all this I doubt my word is worth much for you.
Well you did come forward a week later but I'm wondering as to your purpose, were you exploring a bug in the self-ratification-of-identity rule? (I can't remember what you said when you originally told us about it). It's turned into an interesting discussion in any case. -Goethe
