Re: [s-d] [s-b] $wgLogo (now with more drama!)

[bd <nomic@xxxxxxx>]

shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I will follow this one with interest.
> 
>> I submit my own RFJ with the following statement:
>> {{This is RFJ 007}}
> 
> False, surely, since it will be some other RFJ number?
> 
> I must admit I could not follow the logic of the ruling on RFJ #7
> myself - but since my following the logic isn't required, and there is
> nothing anyone can do about it anyway...

Either RFJs must contain statements about the rules, in which case this 
one does not exist, or RFJ 007 previously existed, in which case this 
one is False.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss