omd wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
7145 2 omd A controversial proposal
AGAINST (I think you meant unambiguous there at the end?)
The intent expressed in such a message is necessarily ambiguous, but
required to be
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
7145 2 omd A controversial proposal
AGAINST (I think you meant unambiguous there at the end?)
The intent expressed in such a message is necessarily ambiguous, but
required to be unambiguous.
2 matches
Mail list logo