Antonio Dolcetta on Wed, 6 Feb 2008 06:09:08 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization |
On 6 Feb 2008, at 03:22, Ed Murphy wrote: > Billy Pilgrim wrote: > >> The goal of including the block of text bit (as a >> comment, oops) was just to prevent people working around the >> restriction on >> naming rule 4e41 by refering to its section. > > "alludes to" is also necessary, otherwise it could be trivially > worked around by proposing e.g. "Repeal all rules except for 4E1 > through 4E40 and 4E42 through 4E100". I would surely become paranoid if I saw something like this in the ballot. Or at least feel a bit nervous. _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss