> On Oct 27, 2017, at 2:02 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > > # Recipient Gaelan PT[1] (registration order, earliest-to-latest) > ----------------------------- > 0 4 sh. 0 sh. > 1 PT[1] 4 sh. 1 sh. > 10 PT[1] 4 sh. 2 sh. > 13 PT[1] 4 sh. 3 sh. > 16 PT[1] 4 sh. 4 sh. > 18 Gaelan 5 sh. 4 sh. > 19 PT[1] 5 sh. 5 sh.
That doesn’t make any sense. I’ll take a mulligan. # Recipient Gaelan PT[1] (registration order, earliest-to-latest) ----------------------------- 0 4 sh. 0 sh. 1 PT[1] 4 sh. 1 sh. 3 PT[1] 4 sh. 2 sh. 5 PT[1] 4 sh. 3 sh. 7 PT[1] 4 sh. 4 sh. 9 Gaelen 5 sh. 4 sh. 10 PT[1] 5 sh. 5 sh. 12 Gaelan 6 sh. 5 sh. 13 PT[1] 6 sh. 6 sh. 15 Gaelan 7 sh. 6 sh. 16 PT[1] 7 sh. 7 sh. 18 Gaelan 8 sh. 7 sh. 19 PT[1] 8 sh. 8 sh. is more correct. Each payment made to PT while eir balance was less than Gaelan’s succeeded, and each payment to Gaelan while eir balance was tied for the least succeeded. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
