On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 13:41 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Apparently, you were registered contiguously from 2 Mar 06 to 31 May 07, > > > easily long enough to satisfy the buggy requirement. > > > > Gratuitous: I have been interpreting it as non-buggy. If I say "I've > > been here for two hours", it means the last two hours, not some > > arbitrary time in the past. > > I was about to say I also have been reading it omd's way. Sounds like > there's enough uncertainty for a cfj on this one...
I meant "buggy requirement" as a hypothetical in my quote (as in, "satisfies the requirement if it's bugged"). FWIW, I meant omd's interpretation when I wrote the rule originally. Not that that really counts for anything. (And not that either interpretation is obviously broken.) -- ais523
