|
comex on Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:10:05 -0700 (MST)
|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [s-d] [s-b] More bandwagoning
|
- To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] More bandwagoning
- From: comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:10:00 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eE1P8oOqzEl2QNI7tJ+OkoPBpsxx/ioXn0YsLWOvLOE=; b=BGk7ZkfAaB1BpWjIkZoMO96exQUMpPZnjviUxQtGeYK1M9qDpSWCkwvIObuZ7WeEci A7hdNk1qreK0hmAYlE/DWiVaNyCyMlsTDVCA48AWBXe5WRNgUojloEYZ1D6uflScSJch BStESLDIu4Eo+AWJ/V1T5O2yTIX2iwvKbvc0I=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=BoMQHHUP1xCkUN9w2okcrnkzjatWwv35cT+7hxm/T1VdfAv8tEHjyIOt5l30S56F9s GuQaxVG1i/hFiOwoq9bPqRle/yuy9PW//v0LEtAx7H/pqhe2PlO4HTsSxv2YLSWi2EDN FJsW9AnG7vMTAHx8Wf8OVRQhK/1SMVnzUjcTA=
- In-reply-to: <499ED1EF.2050000@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <499ED1EF.2050000@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I request 2 Day Unanimous Consent for my Motion to Add.
>
> (Srsly, though, are we sure that A wasn't just as badly broken? If
> we're saying it isn't because we're not being pedantic, then is B
> still playable under the same standards?)
Well, my argument is that even if we are being pedantic, A is not
broken in the way B is (for one thing, because A uses 'within' not
'between' for comment text, and the greedy interpretation is
impossible because the comment text rule itself would be commented
out).
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss