root wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thanks to the evidence BobTHJ provided, these are straightforward: comex
>> did not comply with the relevant provision of the Vote Market contract,
>> resulting in a ruling in CFJ 2011 of GUILTY, nor did
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks to the evidence BobTHJ provided, these are straightforward: comex
> did not comply with the relevant provision of the Vote Market contract,
> resulting in a ruling in CFJ 2011 of GUILTY, nor did e comply with the
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>
>>> I spent my 50 VP on **nothing** (pikhq took my
>>> VP, called me a fool, and left the Vote Market, no longer obligated to
>>> perform the action which I paid all those VP for em to do),
>>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
>> I spent my 50 VP on **nothing** (pikhq took my
>> VP, called me a fool, and left the Vote Market, no longer obligated to
>> perform the action which I paid all those VP for em to do),
>
> Then why the hell ha
comex wrote:
> I spent my 50 VP on **nothing** (pikhq took my
> VP, called me a fool, and left the Vote Market, no longer obligated to
> perform the action which I paid all those VP for em to do),
Then why the hell haven't you initiated an equity case and asked for
your 50 VP back?
5 matches
Mail list logo
