theworldofdreams.com

Hi all!

I'm just asking if you've looked into my application yet. My first application got rejected, and I made another one. It seems that my e-mail account got jammed after i made my second application and I was wondering if I missed the reply. I made another e-mail application, so perhaps you could reply to the new address again if you've already replied.
My former e-mail address was synth@jippii.fi
and the new (and hopefully working) account is at markopajanen3@hotmail.com. Thanks.

Your application is currently in the Review Process. Thanks for giving us the corrected e-mail address.

Jassoo, lisää suomalaisia.
Hope you get in.

I would say you will not get in due to not readnig the rules. Unless you had a reference you will not be admitted.

Azzo Ranar wrote:I would say you will not get in due to not readnig the rules. Unless you had a reference you will not be admitted.

lots of people get in based on their own merits Azzo. why would you think a reference is a must have?

Anonymous wrote:markopajanen3@hotmail.com. Thanks.

This would be the reason. Free-mail account without a referral.

Tristan Gryphon wrote:

Anonymous wrote:markopajanen3@hotmail.com. Thanks.

This would be the reason

perhaps if i actually READ the stuff other people write hehe.

sorry, I was bored

*grins*

LOL yep it were that thar free mail account whut clueded me in on his problem.

That's fairly narrow minded of you, Azzo.

Perhaps they did read the rules, and perhaps they don't have an email account that is paid for, and yet they still wanted to give it a shot.
Just because something doesn't jib with the rule book the way it should, doesn't ever automatically mean that the rules haven't been brought into consideration.

I am currently using a free non paid for email for WoD. I'm here.

John Duklain wrote:I am currently using a free non paid for email for WoD. I'm here.

This is kind of a distortion of the truth. Your original application was not a "free-mail" account. It was an AOL account.

When you lost your account information you reapplied with a "free-mail" account, but were rejected. I'm assuming that since there are no other applications, you just got your original account information back to use.

The fact remains, that we are not narrow-minded in our thinking. It is in the rules. Either have an ISP driven e-mail account, or a referral. These rules were made by people who were in charge of making this world what it is. And the rules have a clear purpose, to help keep out people that would have a tendency to be less desirable citizens.

I didn't call the admin narrow minded, I did so to Azzo, and I was sent a change of password, which is what I needed for my account. Rejected or not, I got back on with the information I provided.

Also, there is no distortion of the truth.

I am currently using a free email, and that is what I said.

The fact remains, that we are not narrow-minded in our thinking. It is in the rules. Either have an ISP driven e-mail account, or a referral.

Also, he had a referral.

Sorry if I upset any admin.

John Duklain wrote:and I was sent a change of password, which is what I needed for my account. Rejected or not, I got back on with the information I provided.

But you did not gain acceptance to the shard on the merits of your e-mail account. You were simply given a new password as an existing account. Whether or not you are using an ISP account, or a free-mail account now is of no consequence. You were not accepted as a new member with a "free-mail" account.

John Duklain Wrote:

Also, he had a referral.

Where does it say that? There is no mention of a referral.

Let's set this straight right quick.

This is the point...

It is narrow-minded of Azzo to assume that a person has not read the rules simply because they used a free e-mail.

I misread concerning the referral. My mistake.

John Duklain wrote:Let's set this straight right quick.

This is the point...

It is narrow-minded of Azzo to assume that a person has not read the rules simply because they used a free e-mail.

I misread concerning the referral. My mistake.

Set what straight? I am not the one confusing issues. It is not narrow-minded to assume someone has not read the rules if they try to get around them. I would think that that is better than assuming that they read the rules and are still trying to get around them.[/b]