Re: DIS: [Fwd: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Accessorizing]

pikhq wrote: 7) A Jester's Cap may be put on or taken off. So much for the precedent of CFJ 1628. The precedent of CFJ *1629* already went away. Consider the Elephant Contract. ;) I'd suggest going for the trifecta and mooting 1630, but I'm not sure that we really want to bring back Insane

Re: DIS: [Fwd: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Accessorizing]

On Saturday 08 December 2007 18:53:27 Ed Murphy wrote: > TTttCN > > > Original Message > Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:28:17 -0800 > From: Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Accessorizing > > pikhq wrote: > > > I create the following a

DIS: [Fwd: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Accessorizing]

TTttCN Original Message Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:28:17 -0800 From: Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Accessorizing pikhq wrote: I create the following agreement: [snip] 7) A Jester's Cap may be put on or taken off. So much for