DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flowers for Wooble

2009-10-19 Thread Roger Hicks
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:00, Ed Murphy wrote: > (If card recordkeeping isn't caught up soon, then I suggest a deputy > Promotor distribute everything and plead for DISCHARGE if e thereby > breaks Rule 1607.  Better that than a stagnant pool.) > I'm back in the office today and will be working on

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flowers for Wooble

2009-10-18 Thread Sean Hunt
Ed Murphy wrote: Walker wrote: Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think it would be a lot easier for the new Promotor to catch up on Distributability of you stopped using conditional Distrib-u-matic spends. Ssh, I'm trying to overload the system. (Seriously, though, there are only 9

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flowers for Wooble

2009-10-18 Thread Ed Murphy
Walker wrote: > Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think it would be a lot > easier for the new Promotor to catch up on Distributability of you > stopped using conditional Distrib-u-matic spends. Ssh, I'm trying to overload the system. (Seriously, though, there are only 9 active first-c

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flowers for Wooble

2009-10-18 Thread Sean Hunt
Ed Murphy wrote: If I have a Distrib-u-Matic, then I play it to make this proposal distributable. You do not.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flowers for Wooble

2009-10-18 Thread Charles Walker
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > If I have a Distrib-u-Matic, then I play it to make this proposal > distributable. > > (If card recordkeeping isn't caught up soon, then I suggest a deputy > Promotor distribute everything and plead for DISCHARGE if e thereby > breaks Rule 1607.