daggertype: thank you! (Default)
DAGGER ([personal profile] daggertype) wrote2018-03-26 02:56 am

//INBOX




 

DAGGER@CDC.ORG
(0) UNREAD MESSAGES
luckystarlimit: (explaining)

d75, 50:30

[personal profile] luckystarlimit 2014-12-27 08:58 pm (UTC)(link)
FROM: cissnei@cdc.org

I've come to understand you find wings problematic. Are they more or less so if they're on an octagon?

FROM: cissnei@cdc.org

And if that emblem were potentially part of that broken container?
luckystarlimit: (explaining)

[personal profile] luckystarlimit 2015-01-08 07:35 am (UTC)(link)
FROM: cissnei@cdc.org

Well, we're gathering pieces at the Observation Deck for now. But I can bring this piece somewhere else if you'd rather.


[Yeah, she's assuming he's referring to the container logo and not denial of the message.]
luckystarlimit: (suspicious)

[personal profile] luckystarlimit 2015-01-18 03:14 pm (UTC)(link)
FROM: cissnei@cdc.org

Seen? No-one, so far. But I reported it to team leads immediately. They saw no reason not to disclose the information alongside everyone else's.

FROM: cissnei@cdc.org

Can I take all this to mean the answer to my question would be "more problematic"?
luckystarlimit: (suspicious)

[personal profile] luckystarlimit 2015-02-03 09:42 am (UTC)(link)
FROM: cissnei@cdc.org

Is that a suggestion or an order?
luckystarlimit: (suspicious)

[personal profile] luckystarlimit 2015-02-13 11:30 am (UTC)(link)
FROM: cissnei@cdc.org

It can be both. I was just making sure that it was.


[Protective of her team plus aware of a need to cover her back means she has to check these things.]
luckystarlimit: (suspicious)

[personal profile] luckystarlimit 2015-03-04 09:48 am (UTC)(link)
FROM: cissnei@cdc.org

Both it is, then.