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

[Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx>]

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