On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 15:41 -0400, comex wrote: > 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?
Some people did. -- ais523
