I cut an 01 and put the clause in explicitly so its clear the words were
there ab initio. Thanks for pointing 4.3 out, It's worth exposing it. I had
felt like being terce but that wasn't helping.
In the spirit I wrote, I do think 6761 was a mistake but characterizing it
that way has tickled some
On 2/22/16 4:17 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
> I know it had that clause Brian. I kept the document short. I think the
> clause was a sanity clause whose invokation was basically insane. We
> should not have formalized a process on it, it should have been
> something done on very mature
On 23/02/2016 13:17, George Michaelson wrote:
> I know it had that clause Brian. I kept the document short. I think the
> clause was a sanity clause whose invokation was basically insane. We should
> not have formalized a process on it, it should have been something done on
> very mature
I know it had that clause Brian. I kept the document short. I think the
clause was a sanity clause whose invokation was basically insane. We should
not have formalized a process on it, it should have been something done on
very mature consideration. Instead, we've had a very immature conversation
