comex wrote:
> By the way, I had to read the entire third part of my message to make
> sure it didn't contain any attempts at actions. Reading nonsense is
> somewhat fun, you should try it.
There was at least one instance of "proposal" in that section that could
be interpreted in a non-nonsensical fashion.
I'm not sure what you meant to hide in section 1 (there are a couple of
potential proposals and votes). Section 2 contains this bit:
> I CFJ on the statement: w/ o objection I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> {{This is Agora}} (www.poolappeal.tv)
> I CFJ on the statement: intend to rat-ify this /products.aspx
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> {{This is Agora}} report: I dont have the patent
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I CFJ on the statement: title that may not be declined,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> {{This is Agora}} In-Ground Pool Cleaners
> I CFJ on the statement: retracted, or revoked::: (sc ope=FLR)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
