On Nov 18, 2007 8:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Except now that I think about it, that completely displaces the point > of the proposal. You don't send a message to B Nomic on behalf of > Agora by posting it to Agora's public forum. What's a non-ugly way > for the rule to supply a mechanism for actions that need one but > require the same mechanism for actions that don't?
s/require/not require/ -root
