On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > I apologize if this is so. When you denied and posted the 'did not', > 'did too', I assumed you were acknowledging that the statement > "Rule 2238 is a Power=3 rule" to BUS was meant to be a self-ratifying > statement from the rulekeepor disguised (initially) as musings; I > was guided by your recent specific use of the R2201(b) for the same > scam. Please understand my paranoia, but if I can get an independent > assessment (anyone else?) that your statement has no danger, I'll > apologize again... :)
Oh, it was a scam and you broke it, just for the wrong reason: I was going to declare it self-ratifying a few minutes before seven days after it was published. :) Ah well, we'll see how the other CFJ goes.
