Daniel Lepage on 30 Jun 2003 19:57:01 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Ow.



On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 01:56  PM, Glotmorf wrote:

On 6/30/03 at 12:58 PM Daniel Lepage wrote:

Curiously enough, if you had put another rule in your fake prop, it
would have been legal under the multiple rules clause. But if it's a
single rule, you have to have the same name on the prop and the rule.
Kinda funny how that works.

Sorry, guy, it doesn't quite say that. It says that "The Proposal is given the same title as the Rule." That doesn't mean it has to start out that way. It means if it's recognized as to "propose a rule" its title needs to be changed to that of the rule inside. But the original, overwritten title doesn't make the proposal illegal.

Hmm... I suppose you're right. But the original point still stands - you have said nothing in any public forum to indicate that your intent was for the block of text you sent to be a proposal at all, much less a r216 "proposed rule".

--
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss