Goethe wrote:
> This scam was used before; when Rests were called blots, a past scam
> blotted most of the players into deregistration-land (before my time;
> maybe one of the involved players could describe it---Michael?)
Chuck did it, not into deregistration-land but close enough that they
agre
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Ah, clever. Most partnerships aren't sufficiently unilateral to be able
> to manage that, and arguably the ones that do are sufficient to land
> people in enough trouble as it is. (For instance, you could get the
> partnership to agree to a con
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 08:52 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Even if there's no scam per se, do you think that a deregistering
> player can't "take members with em" in a fit of pique? For a scam, I
> think it could happen quite easily that enough players in end up in
> partnerships that a well-connect
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Ah. If you mean to merge the criminal and equity courts, you should just
>> come out and say that a "judge of an equity court can create rests" and
>> rather than using this backhanded method.
>
>
On 21 Jan 2009, at 13:57, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Ah. If you mean to merge the criminal and equity courts, you
should just
come out and say that a "judge of an equity court can create rests"
and
rather than using this backhanded method. The scam is fairly real
(not
that "eir" thing) though no
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ah. If you mean to merge the criminal and equity courts, you should just
> come out and say that a "judge of an equity court can create rests" and
> rather than using this backhanded method.
But with this method, contracts can be self-policin
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 14:08 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, comex wrote:
>>> It's not a scam (ttPF!). Nor do I think ais523's pronoun argument is
>>> very convincing-- the referent is clear. I suppose it'll fail now--
>>> good for me now
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 14:08 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, comex wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 6059 D 1 2.0 comex "Voluntary" creation of rests
> >>> FOR
> >>
> >> I've found the scam here I believe; I'm not going to describe
On 20 Jan 2009, at 22:08, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Er, scam aside, did I miss the legitimate context under which anyone
*would* create Rests in eir own possession? I might not have looked
so hard for a scam if I'd know there was an intended reason. -Goethe
Obligatary/act-on-behalfy rest creationa
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
6059 D 1 2.0 comex "Voluntary" creation of rests
>>> FOR
>>
>> I've found the scam here I believe; I'm not going to describe it
>> while this is being voted for in case comex hasn't thought
On 20 Jan 2009, at 18:54, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I've found the scam here I believe; I'm not going to describe it
while this is being voted for in case comex hasn't thought of it :),
but I strongly recommend Against here. -Goethe
ais thinks he's found it
19:02 < ehird> A player CAN spen
On 20 Jan 2009, at 18:54, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I've found the scam here I believe; I'm not going to describe it
while this is being voted for in case comex hasn't thought of it :),
but I strongly recommend Against here. -Goethe
How closed.
(Abstinence-only scam awareness?)
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> 6059 D 1 2.0 comex "Voluntary" creation of rests
> FOR
I've found the scam here I believe; I'm not going to describe it
while this is being voted for in case comex hasn't thought of it :),
but I strongly recommend Against here. -Goethe
13 matches
Mail list logo
