Pavitra wrote:
> Where, if anywhere, do we draw the line between Rolden and AGAINT?
Gratuitous: AGAINT was originally intended to mean "FOR" (CFJs
1260-61), the opposite of what common sense suggests it's a typo
for. "Rolden" was originally intended to mean "Rodlen", the same
as what common sen
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 23:22, Benjamin
Caplan wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Rolden 1+ 1i
>
Admitted.
BobTHJ
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> I CFJ: The recent Scorekeepor's report included Rodlen's score.
>
> I CFJ: Rolden has published a message.
> When a misspelling is accidental, as in the Scorekeepor's report, it is
> generally accepted as a reasonable synonym. But what happens when it
3 matches
Mail list logo
