On Fri, 23 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > Just because the rules don't explicitly declare themselves as a binding > agreement doesn't mean they aren't one:
The "if it quacks like a duck" argument. Nothing wrong with that one. -Goethe
On Fri, 23 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > Just because the rules don't explicitly declare themselves as a binding > agreement doesn't mean they aren't one:
The "if it quacks like a duck" argument. Nothing wrong with that one. -Goethe