On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:25 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >> I intend to continue being vaguely sloppy about this sort of thing, >> as a standing object lesson to initiators who forget to disqualify. > The problem being that comex probably didn't want to disqualify in this > case.
Steve and I used to work this one a lot, one scammer (not an opponent) calls the CFJ and disqualifies an anticipated reactionary so the other scammer stays qualified. -G.
