On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Pavitra <celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 6046 D 1 2.0 comex Cruft > AGAINST. "remove ... all text under it" arguably does not stop at the > beginning of (c), and might even delete all sufficiently low-powered > rules listed after 1023 in the Logical Rulesets. It's also entirely > plausible that comex intended this when e wrote the proposal.
Obviously the intent was "under" as in "contained in"...
