|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Serenity Steele
   |
Posted - 2006.04.23 12:59:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Aralis
The post you quote from me is not the only communication from me but a summary after our conversation.
That quote is a copy/paste from your Evemail 2006.03.10 08:35 to myself and the only time you communicated a claim beyond your sov. systems prior to our convo on 04.19.
I look forward to discussing this matter further with a wider group of CVA management.
|
Serenity Steele
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 13:52:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Originally by: Muadeeb Ousil
Why didnt you simply say 2 months ago when the shares were released - Sry you aint building in our area.
I think you'll find that the CVA did inform the ISS of their claim on the area where they are now preparing to build an outpost.
Then you need to reset your thinking. The timeline is accurate.
Aralis informed of CVA's claim on the area in dispute AFTER the ISS prepared to build an oupost.
A total of 13 systems and heading "North" was not what Aralis originally communicated.
|
Serenity Steele
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 13:57:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Parallax Error
...
Please note: .... out east to F-YH5B and 3KB-10
Now, we've already had more than enough posts proving the definition of the word "to". You have also been very well aware that the area the CVA is interested in lies purely within the region of Providence.
...
For future reference:
6 + 6 = 12 = The number of systems ISS originally understood
6 + 7 = 13 = The number of systems CVA apparently claim.
6 + 6 + 1 + 1 = 14 = The number of systems if you include ISS's understanding and your comment on 'to' means blah blah.
|
Serenity Steele
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 14:06:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Rodj Blake
The timeline as stated in this thread does not include that fact that the CVA informed you of their plans in February.
They didn't, the convo was 2006.03.09 - That is why we took the trouble to research the timeline and clarify the facts.
If anyone has a convo prior to that date on this matter between CVA and ISS that states a claim, I'd like to see it.
In either case, the issue is now for CVA and ISS to find a solution.
|
Serenity Steele
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 14:48:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Parallax Error
Originally by: Serenity Steele
For future reference:
6 + 6 = 12 = The number of systems ISS originally understood
6 + 7 = 13 = The number of systems CVA apparently claim.
6 + 6 + 1 + 1 = 14 = The number of systems if you include ISS's understanding and your comment on 'to' means blah blah.
So no answer on the fact that 3KB-10 is undisuptedly part of the claim and that your trying to pass off a constellation in Catch as part of our claim?
Yes of course, including 3KB-10 (and F-YH5B by your same logic) would have meant a total of 14 systems, and heading North of A4.
As the original claim was 12 systems and heading east, 3KB-10 is not part of the claim.
The fact that the systems are officially in the region catch is neither here nor there, ISS respected Aralis' claim as it was written.
|
|
|
| |
|