On Fri, 11 Oct 2013, omd wrote:
> Proposal: Sequester (AI=3)
Technical concern: If you repeal R105 towards the beginning, does that
prevent everything that comes after it from working? Might need to
think about implementation order here.
Also, do you happen to have created a copy of what th
I object to being excluded!
--aperfectring
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Jonathan Rouillard <
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I am inactive, I object to any pending intention to make me inactive.
>
> ~ Roujo
>
On Fri, 11/10/13, omd wrote:
> [This is certain to be controversial, but what the hell...
> Intentionally removes a lot of (most) important
> functionality, in the
> hope that starting from scratch may provide interest.
Could you post a copy of the resulting ruleset, so that we
can check it for
3 matches
Mail list logo
