On Nov 16, 2007 2:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 7xAGAINST. Doesn't fix the win scam (or do I misunderstand purpose of this?}
This was the explanation I gave when I submitted the proposal but did
not include in it:
> The previous case was also intended to demonstrate that the
>
On Nov 13, 2007 6:04 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 5296 O1 1.7 rootDecidable Undetermination
> AGAINST - I would recommend instead making as many judgements starting with
> UNDE as possible. Suggestions: UNDENIABLE, UNDEFATIGABLE, UNDECIMAL. Or
> else fix Rule 2110 to actual
2 matches
Mail list logo
