Oh that's just a typo. On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 21:55 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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 > >
