2008/6/15 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This sort of thing was already shot down by CFJs 1260-61 (basically a > refusal to attempt distinguishing intentional from accidental typos, > no matter how clear-cut it seems). > > Assuming you don't actually object to the change at a conceptual level, > I suggest retracting your objection (if any) so that it can go forward. >
*Ahem* AGAINT. ehird
