Re: [s-d] [s-b] miner forty niner

Mike McGann on Fri, 16 May 2008 10:40:05 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] miner forty niner

To: "discussion list for B Nomic" <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] miner forty niner
From: "Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 13:40:00 -0400
In-reply-to: <482DC5E2.2090102@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <482D32F2.8080707@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <6d741b990805160444n5e39cb19vf8f149b002e049d6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <482DC5E2.2090102@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is mildly disappointing - is there a specific concern I could address?

My objection didn't go over well. Go ahead and reissue the contract
and I won't object.

- Hose
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] miner forty niner
  - From: Jay Campbell

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] A question for the MoS
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] miner forty niner
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] miner forty niner
Next by thread: [s-d] Missing Bishop?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread