Re: [eia] Apologies

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "J.J. Young":
> Here's the boiled down version of the emailed conversation between Kyle and
> I today:
> 
> KYLE:  Heads up.  There's this rule about St. P that I want to check that
> you're interpreting this way.
> 
> J.J.:  No, it should be interpreted this other way.  Read 8.2.1.1.
> 
> Kyle:  OK, but I'm pretty sure Mike is interpreting it this other way.
> 
> J.J.:  You'd better tell him, then.
> 
> Kyle:  I already sent him an email.
> 
> J.J.:  OK.
> 
> Time passes...
> 
> J.J.:  So what did Mike say about that email ?
> 
> Kyle:  He hasn't answered yet.  What if Mike went back and changed his
> orders ?
> 
> J.J:  This is similar to the rule mistake Jim just made about his supply
> lines.  Maybe they should both go back and change their orders, if we're
> going back at all.
> 
> Kyle:  Sounds good.
> 
> Other than critiques of the Two Towers, this is the sum total of our
> discussion today, which started out as a one-to-one heads up from Kyle, and
> only continued one-to-one because we hadn't heard back from Mike, yet.  I
> did not intend to handle the matter in any way which was improper or
> impolite, and if I have done so, I apologize.
> 
> -JJY

Um, *what* are the interpretations of the capital occupation rules that are
in question? As someone who has a capital, I'd like to know...


-- 
J.


_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia