Antonio Dolcetta on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:13:46 -0700 (MST)

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

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

bd wrote:
> 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.
eh ?
maybe you are confusing 006 with 007 ?

spoon-discuss mailing list