comex wrote:
On 12/20/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As stated above, I find that all of these points conflict with the
best interests of the game, and so I think it important to deviate
from the set interpretation. In contrast, a rational number
interpretation results in no such problems. Based upon that, and upon
Judge Goethe's prior reasoning if VVLOP is assumed to be a number, I
judge CFJs 1826 and 1827 FALSE.
IIRC the Assessor's report has been ratified so this has no effect on
the game... right?
The report in question included a note that the AFO's VVLOP was
in dispute.
