coppro wrote: > On 01/08/2010 04:57 PM, comex wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 6:53 PM, ais523<callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> Not taken as such, but I object to all of these except the Ienpw and >>> Warrigal deactivations. >> >> I re-intend to make inactivate ehird and G. (if they are here they can >> object but the quorum is way too high at the moment) >> > > Does not explicitly specify the method.
Doesn't have to do so explicitly, just "unambiguously and clearly" (Rule 1728).
