On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Line 11 scans ok but I think the multiple "to"s make the syntax a bit > odd. It's like a split infinitive that decided to unsplit halfway > through.
Huh, I never noticed that before. Writing rules in verse (and doing a good job of it) is hard, though. One of my biggest regrets has been that the appendix I added to Rule 1787 was unable to match the tone of Steve's original and somewhat soured the rule as a whole. Would that I had never proposed it! I very much doubt that it ever would have passed had it not been a Takeover proposal. -root
