Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.