Michael Slone wrote:
>It would be even clearer to write:
I started out with that form, actually. I thought it was less clear,
because it purports to make two amendments when the intention is actually
to make only one.
>There's no need for conditional edits here.
It's conditional in any case; it
On 5/8/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Zefram wrote:
> If possible, amend rule 1871 by replacing the text "if e was turned
> when it was called" with "if e is turned". Otherwise, amend rule 1871
> by replacing the text "if e was not standing when it was called" with
> "if e is not stan
Zefram wrote:
If possible, amend rule 1871 by replacing the text "if e was turned
when it was called" with "if e is turned". Otherwise, amend rule 1871
by replacing the text "if e was not standing when it was called" with
"if e is not standing".
This would be clearer if worded as "If R1871 co
3 matches
Mail list logo
