On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:46, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 21 Oct 2008, at 15:42, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>
>> Oops...and finally, through your PBA deposit net you 68 coins (instead
>> of 60) I am only considering 60 coins to be deposited in the RBOA.
>>
>> BobTHJ
>
>
> Actually, the
On 21 Oct 2008, at 15:42, Roger Hicks wrote:
Oops...and finally, through your PBA deposit net you 68 coins (instead
of 60) I am only considering 60 coins to be deposited in the RBOA.
BobTHJ
Actually, the whole thing was ineffective, due to incorrectly
specified rates.
--
ehird
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:39, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:37, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 22:10, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Did you guys get this? I got neither a "sorry, you're not subscribed"
>>> nor an echo.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:37, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 22:10, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Did you guys get this? I got neither a "sorry, you're not subscribed"
>> nor an echo.
>>
>> If the below message was not sent successfully, I send it now. I'll
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 22:10, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did you guys get this? I got neither a "sorry, you're not subscribed"
> nor an echo.
>
> If the below message was not sent successfully, I send it now. I'll
> see about subscribing that address to the lists.
>
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intent to amend the PBA by adding: {After this section takes effect, the
> RBoA ceases
> to be a member of this contract, then this section is repealed.}
I object. The RBoA should be free to put itself in a position to l
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 9:13 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm afraid recordkeepors aren't allowed to ignore actions they don't
> like. Sorry.
They are allowed to set policies on interpretation of ambiguous or
inconsistently-specified transfers. ehird has previously publicly
stated this.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 19 Oct 2008, at 18:10, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>
>> This should be standardized in the contract.
>
> I agree. We already have one piece of precedent, though, we agreed that this
> did not
> work (well, it wouldn't have the I
ehird wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2008, at 17:13, ihope wrote:
>> I'm afraid recordkeepors aren't allowed to ignore actions they don't
>> like. Sorry.
>
> Actually, I have previously stated that it is a safeguard mechanism
> for people, and I
> treat "X (this gives me Y)" as not fundamentally different
On 19 Oct 2008, at 17:13, ihope wrote:
I'm afraid recordkeepors aren't allowed to ignore actions they don't
like. Sorry.
Actually, I have previously stated that it is a safeguard mechanism
for people, and I
treat "X (this gives me Y)" as not fundamentally different to "X.
This gives me Y."
10 matches
Mail list logo
