root wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Good catch. As ehird isn't registered, E isn't a player, so E can't >>> be in the manroster regardless of what the manroster says (unless the >>> contract somehow has a greater power than the rule indicating what a >>> player is, in that case the manroster may have defined ehird as a >>> player...) >> In that case, ehrid still has two partners, so the attempts to >> deregister it were unsuccessful. Updating records accordingly. > > No, the attempts to deregister it were based upon the belief that the > Manroster only contained ehird (and e was therefore the only partner). > It now turns out that the Manroster actually only contained Ivan Hope > CXXVII. So this has no bearing on the success or failure of the > deregistration attempts.
Gah. I'll grok this later and work out the net effect on my records.
