After rereading it, I don't understand the need for both a "to" and a "for". I think either would work on its own. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Oct 14, 2017, at 7:16 PM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> Amend Rule 1023 by appending "The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to for >>> determining whether two points in time are within N months of each other, >>> for N greater than or equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth bullet >>> in the first list. >> >> This line doesn't make much sense. > > Why not? > > -Aris
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
