|Joel Uckelman on 2 Apr 2001 15:17:58 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ|
Quoth "Harrison, Andrew": > That's a bit much really. I would have thought it was perfectly clear that > it was invalid. So much so infact that I would not have said it needed an > RFJ in the first place. Actions are deemed to be taken when they arrive in > the public forum. Therefore Poulenc ruled before he was recused. Therefore > the recusal didn't apply. Anyone disagree? > > -- > The Kid Yeah, that's what I thought, too. Otherwise we would have needed RFJs for all of those numbering mistakes I've made since October. -- J.