Roger Hicks wrote:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:28, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
2721: GUILTY / APOLOGY
2722: GUILTY / DISCHARGE
2723: GUILTY / DISCHARGE
Technically GUILTY, but for the various reasons cited, an APOLOGY
should be sufficient - provided that it isn't phoned in this time.
For today's prescribed-words list, we go to Urban Dictionary for
some noun phrases:
different hats
roll call
bedding the rules
objectively attractive
Not that I think you've been unfair, but did you consider my argument
for NOT GUILTY via implicit announcement? The NOVs were announced in
the Insulator report, and by assigning them ID numbers I implicitly
declared their validity. I think this does satisfy the requirement in
the rules.
BobTHJ
I don't recall you mentioning the ID numbers as an implicit declaration
of validity; I'd probably accept that as argument for NOT GUILTY.
However, now that I think of it, you've also failed to report on ID
numbers (please fix this) and you've failed to assign ID numbers to
valid NoVs published before they got ID numbers (this is a rules issue
and probably should be fixed).
Also, you've failed to report on cards this week. This is rather
irritating, but I won't issue NoVs because of those other ones.
(reminder: update your scripts to say you deputize for Grand Poobah
rather than aob)
Lastly, did you notice that I addressed your comment on my dealing
refactor proposal?
-coppro
