[Bnomic-private] Synopsis

[bd]

On Friday 16 August 2002 11:51 pm, Baron von Skippy wrote:
> > >-[[Pardon me while I grin massively. Even if there won't be two wins
> > >and/or
> > >blowups, I've still kicked bd for everyone else. That's what, 70 poi=
nts?
> > >Cool, I'm not in last place any more.]]-
> >
> >You didn't kick em for me.  I was the first kicker.  Thank you for you=
r
> >concern.
> >
> >=09=09=09=09=09=09Glotmorf
>
> -[[Seeing as you are 280 ahead of me, fighting over 5 is kind of dumb, =
but
> then again, I am broke and I have a Gnome habit to maintain. You didn't=
 say
> for what you were kicking him when you did. And when you assigned a rea=
son,
> it was Wonko's, for perpetuating an e-mail hoax. So I still get all 14,=
 as
> you never kicked him for hostility.]]-

I belive the rule for Hostility requires that I *specifically state* a=20
defendant. I didn't, and furthermore, there are no defendants at all. No=20
other entry in the rule can be used in this instance :) Moreover, the e-m=
ail=20
hoax argument is specious. The admin won't buy it (I hope), and personall=
y, I=20
think he'll just refuse to recognise the CFIs.
--=20
bd
The above =3D=3D my from field. Duh.