On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:15 PM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:40 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >> The domain of the argument is whether or not this opportunity was >> "reasonable", by whatever standards we might determine it. Just as >> it would be possible but probably unreasonable for someone to catch a >> with-notice intent buried in the middle of (say) the Herald's report, >> it was possible but arguably unreasonable for someone to have seen >> your objection-based intents and gone looking for a scam within a >> non-objection-based clause. > > It's a lot more reasonable to look for a scam when a message explicitly > states that it contains multiple scams.
As I said in gratuitous arguments: if everyone had notice of your specific intent to amend Points Party, why didn't they leave? -- -c.
