comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> This proposal would be ineffective because you don't specify where
>> in the rules to add the new texts. ("Append" works, "append after X"
>> works, "add" does not work.)
>
> Is there a precedent for this?
Ordinary language; "
Sean Hunt wrote:
> I CFJ {The proposal entitled It's the Thought That Counts, if adopted,
> would successfully cause the first Rule Change described in its text.}
> I CFJ {The proposal entitled It's the Thought That Counts, if adopted,
> would successfully cause the second Rule Change described in
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> This proposal would be ineffective because you don't specify where
> in the rules to add the new texts. ("Append" works, "append after X"
> works, "add" does not work.)
Is there a precedent for this?
--
-c.
3 matches
Mail list logo
