comex wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal 6306 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Murphy
Patch objections
...
The above notwithstanding, if the action depends on objections,
and an objection to it has been withdrawn within the
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
It does, but 2240 only applies to self-contradictory chains of
precedence/deference clauses within a rule. If a rule simply
reads X, but notwithstanding that, Y, then 2240 does not apply,
and common sense says that Y
On Tue, 26 May 2009, comex wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal 6306 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Murphy
Patch objections
...
The above notwithstanding, if the action depends on objections,
and an objection to it has been
3 matches
Mail list logo
