cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message

Admin-GTESUPH1 admin-gtesuph1_at_gtesuphub1 at
Fri Jul 18 17:03:50 PDT 1997

Message is undeliverable.
Reason: Unable to access cc:Mail Post office.
	Please retry later.
Original text follows:

-------------- next part --------------
Received: from by (ccMail Link to SMTP R6.00.02)
	; Fri, 18 Jul 97 17:13:40 -0600
Return-Path: <root at>
Received: from [] by
  (SMTPD32-3.03) id AC4D4E200EE; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 17:21:01 -0500
Received: (from majordom at localhost)
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA31423
	for ansteorra-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:34:33 -0500
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA31420
	for <ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG>; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:34:32 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA19707 for <ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG>; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:34:29 -0500
Message-Id: <199707182134.QAA19707 at>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <jyeates at>
From: "J'lynn Yeates" <jyeates at>
To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:32:48 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: SCA Purchases
In-reply-to: <33CFCBF2.7043 at>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54)
Sender: owner-ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG
Resent-From: <agulick at>
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 97 17:21:04 EST
Resent-To:  agulick at ccnet

On 18 Jul 97 at 15:02, William H. Herron III wrote:

> I don't want to talk about the legal side of this.  It's a valid
> expenditure, and if I had ever been presented with receipts I would have
> reimbursed without question.  I want to know the opinions that people
> have on the, er, "correctness" of the expense.

apples and oranges ... 

last i heard, providing condoms was not action that made one legally
liable (birth control pills are another matter being a prescription
item).  basic, off the shelf first aid materials that a "reasonable"
(one of the final legal testings) would keep on hand are a
reasonable and in my mind allowable expense.

> ... Should we pay for such items?

no.  nor should you be in any way expected to provide what is a 
*clearly* a matter of personal responsibility.  if the sub-set of 
people who require them want to *donate* the actual items (condoms) 
or funds to purchase them (or replace those that were used ...) 
that's another matter entirely. 

this digression is a far different matter than using organizational
funds for purchase of alcohol.  for the record i am a drinker and 
in complete support of the BOD position ... having close ties to the
local club scene and having experience with the legal chaos one
irresponsible fool can wreck in a society looking for scapegoats and
easy fix's.


More information about the Ansteorra mailing list