root wrote:
> On a somewhat related note, are the various partnerships aware that if
> CFJ 1684 is sustained, they will not have been considered persons
> until the adoption of R2145 and will need to have registered
> subsequent to that event to be considered players?
Acutely. Five months worth
On 7/10/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/10/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So is Primo just ignoring the decision of CFJ 1659 or what?
I believe so. Wasn't this amended shortly thereafter to fix the problem?
Yes and no. After P5038, the rules definition of "by annou
On 7/10/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So is Primo just ignoring the decision of CFJ 1659 or what?
I believe so. Wasn't this amended shortly thereafter to fix the problem?
BobTHJ
On 7/10/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was away for a week, then back, then away again this week. Primo
Issue #23 assigns CFJ 1688 to Murphy to answer on behalf of Primo, and
CFJ 1694 to myself to answer on behalf of Primo. The slowness has been
due to the lack of a VPSA report summ
There's more to it than that. Primo's cases were assigned almost two
weeks ago; judgements were already overdue before the start of this week.
-zefram
I was away for a week, then back, then away again this week. Primo
Issue #23 assigns CFJ 1688 to Murphy to answer on behalf of Primo, and
CFJ
On 7/10/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As Primo Corporation is not judging its assigned cases, I intend to
change it to lying down, without 2 objections. (I'll be able to do
that under the fifth paragraph of rule 1871/11 if I'm CotC at the time,
which seems a likely turn of events.)
-zef
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>I believe BobTHJ is on vacation without net access for the entire
>week;
There's more to it than that. Primo's cases were assigned almost two
weeks ago; judgements were already overdue before the start of this week.
-zefram
I believe BobTHJ is on vacation without net access for the entire
week; he mentioned it somewhere at Nomicapolis, where he's our
Scorekeeper.
On 7/10/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
P.S. Why isn't Primo judging its cases, anyway?
On 7/10/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I object. I
P.S. Why isn't Primo judging its cases, anyway?
On 7/10/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I object. I intend, without 2 objections, to change Zefram to lying
down. I intend, without objection, to make Zefram inactive.
On 7/10/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As Primo Corporation is
9 matches
Mail list logo
