
|
|
|
Killing your players.,
5 seconds ago
by
The Grandfather
The White Boar of Kilfay - 4E D&D,
5 seconds ago
by
Fabes DM
Untitled III,
22 seconds ago
by
Aberzombie
Today in the News,
1 minute ago
by
Aberzombie
Realms of Agartha PbP,
2 minutes ago
by
Tamrin Sunwake
Pathfinder at Dragonmeet - London - 28th November,
2 minutes ago
by
Thod
Vital Strike And Cleave,
2 minutes ago
by
The Grandfather
Explorers of the Inner Sea,
3 minutes ago
by
Warden of Doors
Son of Forums are Way Too Long!!!,
4 minutes ago
by
Solnes
Flameblade and Wildshape,
5 minutes ago
by
nidho
Dragon Age RPG (Green Ronin),
6 minutes ago
by
Weylin
Pinpoint targeting of area spells,
7 minutes ago
by
Louis IX
This Is My Boomstick!,
7 minutes ago
by
Valegrim
All hail Vomit Guy!,
10 minutes ago
by
Vomit Guy
Pathfinder #1—Rise of the Runelords Chapter 1: "Burnt Offerings" (OGL),
10 minutes ago
by
Aaron Bitman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please email me at sean@(TheDomainShouldBeObvious).com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lost their email addresses? :D
Edit:
Smurf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I never had their email addresses, all of our interactions were through the forums. :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ooo! The 2009 Top 4 are being activated!
You might want to put this request up in the Pathfinder General Discussion forum or the Pathfinder RPG Announcements forum, as those are more likely to be read. The RPG Superstar boards are quite dead these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I expect the Top 4 to read every thread in every board. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean:
Silly question, I know, but since they (Matthew and Kevin) are registered with Paizo, and since giving the email address is part of the identification/signing-in process, won't the PostMonster General know what their email addresses are?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Sean:
Silly question, I know, but since they (Matthew and Kevin) are registered with Paizo, and since giving the email address is part of the identification/signing-in process, won't the PostMonster General know what their email addresses are?
Yep. Any board admin can tell you in about two seconds.
Sean, I'll be sending you an e-mail in about four seconds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vic Wertz wrote:
Yep. Any board admin can tell you in about two seconds.
Sean, I'll be sending you an e-mail in about four seconds.
LOL, in the UK that would be illegal under the data protection act!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But... but... you're making it too easy for the Top 4! You are dashing my unreasonable expectations!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
But... but... you're making it too easy for the Top 4! You are dashing my unreasonable expectations!
But Sean that's what we are here for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present and accounted for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevynxxx wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Yep. Any board admin can tell you in about two seconds.
Sean, I'll be sending you an e-mail in about four seconds.
LOL, in the UK that would be illegal under the data protection act!
I tell ya, after skimming that act, all I have to say is that I thought American legalese was obtuse, but man, we got nothing on you guys.
I'm not a lawyer (or a barrister or solicitor either), but I did happen across a (to my mind) rather bizarre exception in the act that would maybe even make it ok in the UK:
"Personal data which are processed only for the special purposes are exempt from any provision to which this subsection relates if... the processing is undertaken with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic, literary or artistic material..."
(I'm probably wrong that it would be legally relevant, but I just thought it was amusing that a privacy regulation has a clause about art.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vic Wertz wrote:
...but I just thought it was amusing that a privacy regulation has a clause about art.)
It's all in the eye of the beholder...or in this case, the judge. ;-D
--Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vic Wertz wrote:
I tell ya, after skimming that act, all I have to say is that I thought American legalese was obtuse, but man, we got nothing on you guys.
It's because they have to write their laws with a cockney accent, and write them phonetically. Which means lots of guv'na, cheerio, pip pip, wot wot, blimey, bleedin, and so on. Increases the word count by about 50% and requires you to read them out loud to actually understand what it's saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
I tell ya, after skimming that act, all I have to say is that I thought American legalese was obtuse, but man, we got nothing on you guys.
It's because they have to write their laws with a cockney accent, and write them phonetically. Which means lots of guv'na, cheerio, pip pip, wot wot, blimey, bleedin, and so on. Increases the word count by about 50% and requires you to read them out loud to actually understand what it's saying.
Hurray! We may be rubbish at almost everything else in Britain, but the spirit of Magna Carta is still going strong.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
Want to post a reply?
Sign in, or
create a new account.
|
|