DIS: Re: BUS: This Pledge Should Have Terminated

2009-06-04 Thread Taral
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > should have terminated as there is currently no Distributor as defined by > the rules. The post is still filled, even if the Rules don't regulate it anymore. -- Taral "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This Pledge Should Have Terminated

2009-06-04 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > An interesting point. There's an unofficial title of Distributor, that's > granted by game custom to whoever's in charge of the mailing lists; even > though the rules don't define it, I wonder if it's possible for a > contract to refer to it anyway? (Contrac

DIS: Re: BUS: This Pledge Should Have Terminated

2009-06-04 Thread Elliott Hird
Um- no. On 2009-06-04, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > The pledge with the following text: > > Players may add or remove an email address as a "send-only address" > to a specific Public Forum Without Objection. The Distributor SHALL > take what actions are necessary to permit (or prevent, as appropriate)

DIS: Re: BUS: This Pledge Should Have Terminated

2009-06-04 Thread Alex Smith
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 22:10 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > The pledge with the following text: > Players may add or remove an email address as a "send-only > address" > to a specific Public Forum Without Objection. The Distributor > SHALL > take what actions

DIS: Re: BUS: This Pledge Should Have Terminated

2009-06-04 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > The pledge with the following text: > > Players may add or remove an email address as a "send-only address" > to a specific Public Forum Without Objection. The Distributor SHALL > take what actions are necessary to permit (or prevent, as app