Quazie wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5649 O1 1.7 Quazie Partnerships devolve, and so should unqu...
>> AGAINST x 17 (should explicitly lift the first-class restriction for
>> initiating)
>
> I'll fix that then. Also, is the word basis
Zefram wrote:
> Taral wrote:
>> You have a specific objection?
>
> Nothing fundamental. I just want to see more of where the current
> easy-prosecution system leads, as we gain experience in using it.
> Restricting the flow of such experience doesn't seem like a good idea
> right now. I could w
Taral wrote:
>You have a specific objection?
Nothing fundamental. I just want to see more of where the current
easy-prosecution system leads, as we gain experience in using it.
Restricting the flow of such experience doesn't seem like a good idea
right now. I could well be in favour of an identi
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 5:56 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>5650 O1 1.7 Pavitra No frivolous prosecution
> AGAINST*11
You have a specific objection?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5649 O1 1.7 Quazie Partnerships devolve, and so should unqu...
> AGAINST x 17 (should explicitly lift the first-class restriction for
> initiating)
I'll fix that then. Also, is the word basis or feet appropriate for
5 matches
Mail list logo
