Re: [s-b] [s-d] Rule Categorization

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 6, 2008 6:09 AM, Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 6 Feb 2008, at 03:22, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
> > Billy Pilgrim wrote:
> >
> >> The goal of including the block of text bit (as a
> >> comment, oops) was just to prevent people working around the
> >> restriction on
> >> naming rule 4e41 by refering to its section.
> >
> > "alludes to" is also necessary, otherwise it could be trivially
> > worked around by proposing e.g. "Repeal all rules except for 4E1
> > through 4E40 and 4E42 through 4E100".
>
> I would surely become paranoid if I saw something like this in the
> ballot. Or at least feel a bit nervous.
>

I submit the following proposal:

Enough Already!
{
Repeal all rules except for 4E1 through 4E40 and 4E42 through 4E100
}
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business