On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
I meant buggy requirement as a hypothetical in my quote (as in,
satisfies the requirement if it's bugged).
FWIW, I meant omd's interpretation when I wrote the rule originally. Not
that that really counts for anything. (And not that either
interpretation is
On 9 Jul 2013 10:44, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
I meant buggy requirement as a hypothetical in my quote (as in,
satisfies the requirement if it's bugged).
FWIW, I meant omd's interpretation when I wrote the rule originally. Not
that that
Yes, I believe that was the original intent of the rule, though not how it
is written. Would support amendment.
Also, this may apply to me. Is there a chronological record of
registrations/deregistrations/holds?
- arkestra
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 16:27 -0400, Matt Berlin wrote:
Yes, I believe that was the original intent of the rule, though not how it
is written. Would support amendment.
Also, this may apply to me. Is there a chronological record of
registrations/deregistrations/holds?
It's in the Registrar's
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Apparently, you were registered contiguously from 2 Mar 06 to 31 May 07,
easily long enough to satisfy the buggy requirement.
Gratuitous: I have been interpreting it as non-buggy. If I say I've
been here for two hours, it
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Apparently, you were registered contiguously from 2 Mar 06 to 31 May 07,
easily long enough to satisfy the buggy requirement.
Gratuitous: I have been interpreting it as non-buggy. If I say
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 13:41 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Apparently, you were registered contiguously from 2 Mar 06 to 31 May 07,
easily long enough to satisfy the buggy requirement.
An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered continuously for
at least 32 days
Future Perfect Progressive Tense ( ie, happened in the past, is still going
on, and may continue in the future) requires the present participle of the
verb. I don't think registered would work for this (
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 17:01 -0400, Matt Berlin wrote:
An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered continuously for
at least 32 days
Future Perfect Progressive Tense ( ie, happened in the past, is still going
on, and may continue in the future) requires the present participle of
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Matt Berlin arkes...@gmail.com wrote:
An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered continuously for
at least 32 days
Future Perfect Progressive Tense ( ie, happened in the past, is still going
on, and may continue in the future) requires the present
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:32 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Matt Berlin arkes...@gmail.com wrote:
An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered continuously for
at least 32 days
Future Perfect Progressive Tense ( ie, happened in the past, is still
R2357:
An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered
continuously for at least 32 days, and also registered for at
least 128 days total (not necessarily contiguously).
I was registered continuously from 1 July 1994 until 19 June 2004. If I
registered now, would I
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
R2357:
An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered
continuously for at least 32 days, and also registered for at
least 128 days total (not necessarily contiguously).
I was registered continuously from 1 July 1994 until
13 matches
Mail list logo
