shadowfirebird on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:09:09 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] RFJ 0008 judgement

> [[Incidentally, if I was able to judge the reasoning, and I agree with
> Optional that im not, I would still Rule False: I think that though
> RFJ6 had three clauses it still only had one statement.]]

I am SO pleased that you said that.  It was bugging me.  A "statement"
can be several pages long.  (Although I think in the context of an RFJ
you would be hard put to manage that!)
spoon-discuss mailing list