On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
While I'm still, in my Strict Interpretation philosophy, convinced
that the is in R2156 means is and not starts at, subject to
modification by spending Notes, and while language supporting the
latter was added and subsequently removed from R2156
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 10:12 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
While I'm still, in my Strict Interpretation philosophy, convinced
that the is in R2156 means is and not starts at, subject to
modification by spending Notes, and while language supporting the
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 12:17 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
== CFJ 2365 ==
Rule 2238 exists.
While I'm still, in my Strict Interpretation philosophy,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
Well, it's definitely TRUE now. The proposal results in question just
self-ratified.
Ah. Was this a case of the caller purposefully phrased the question
so as not to directly challenge the results of the proposal? Gotta
learn to watch for those. -g.
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
This started an entirely new self-ratification period. Note that this
requires the document to be challenged again to prevent it
self-ratifying. We're one week past the denial now, and it wasn't
challenged during that time; any challenges that might have
5 matches
Mail list logo
