On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh man, I want this job. :)
>
> Sure, until somebody comes up with a scam that involves creating
> hundreds of contract-based assets with no recordkeepors
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh man, I want this job. :)
Sure, until somebody comes up with a scam that involves creating
hundreds of contract-based assets with no recordkeepors that the
Accountor would then be required to track...
-root
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure I have a report -- depends on how you read the rules.
>
> There are no assets without a defined recordkeepor.
>
> --
> Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
>
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:17 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this is like the "decrease by -1" scam.
>
> Any programming language with a 'decrease' method would allow you to
> decrease by -1 in order to increase by 1; but that is (arguably; I
> still disagree :) not standard usa
4 matches
Mail list logo
