BRian writes:
> IMHO, with the existing separation clause in section 7, and *if*
> the two "irrevocable" and "irrevocably" I suggested in other
> messages are added, we don't in fact need a separate agreement.
>
I like (personal opinion) this.
Bert
> (I have changed my mind on this.)
>
> B
> > It's kind of a good fences makes good neighbors kind of thing.
>
> but Frost was arguing just the reverse
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/118/2.html
>
> (in case anyone is confused - in pointing the above out I am not
> saying anything about the need for a Pre-nup agreement in this case -
> ju
Eric Rescorla wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I tend to think that we should go into this arrangement with an
attitude of trust. Certainly we should try to get the document as
specific and accurate as possible, and should leave open the process
for future updates to the BCP, but I do not think w
> It's kind of a good fences makes good neighbors kind of thing.
but Frost was arguing just the reverse
http://www.bartleby.com/118/2.html
(in case anyone is confused - in pointing the above out I am not
saying anything about the need for a Pre-nup agreement in this case -
just showing I read
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I tend to think that we should go into this arrangement with an
> attitude of trust. Certainly we should try to get the document as
> specific and accurate as possible, and should leave open the process
> for future updates to the BCP, but I do not think we need explos
I tend to think that we should go into this arrangement with an
attitude of trust. Certainly we should try to get the document as
specific and accurate as possible, and should leave open the process
for future updates to the BCP, but I do not think we need explosive
bolts or any other prearran
