Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Preds
Are you saying the RFA deal was collusion? Should we go over our definition of that again?
If not, how is collusion relavant as we've got collusion listed as being against the rules, wheras the RFA situation isn't specifically covered (nor should it be IMO).
|
Come on Mike, we went over all of this just yesterday. We didn't get any closer to resolution then, so why do you want to do it again?