On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:45 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >> wrote: >> > However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there >> may >> > be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title. >> Unless >> > Maniac was somehow made non-unique prior to the wins. >> >> Good catch. It was listed as unique right up until it was repealed. >> I believe this means that only Craig actually holds the title. >> >> It's a shame that Peekee didn't get a win for it, as this means there >> will no longer be any record of em achieving the condition. > > Has the Herald's report been ratified since?
Ah, yes. The current report lacks the ratification date for some reason, but a search of my archives reveals that it was last ratified July 21, 2004 -- by myself, incidentally. -root
