Re: 169:14 - INVALID +2

From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Tue Oct 02 2001 - 09:13:24 PDT

• Next message: Glenn Overby II: "Re: 169:14 - INVALID +2"
• Previous message: Christopher Bartlett: "169:14 judgment"
• Maybe in reply to: Glenn Overby II: "169:14 - INVALID +2"
• Next in thread: Glenn Overby II: "Re: 169:14 - INVALID +2"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Glenn Overby II <guardcaptain_at_earthlink.net> writes:

> Style:  A unique stretch to avoid perpetual doubles (+1).

Grumble mutter mutter.  Redefining "letter" to include apostrophes
would've merited at least a -1 style, and probably a summary ruling of
invalidity, had I been judging...

--
- Rich Holmes
  Syracuse, NY

--
Rule Date: 2001-10-02 16:13:34 GMT

• Next message: Glenn Overby II: "Re: 169:14 - INVALID +2"
• Previous message: Christopher Bartlett: "169:14 judgment"
• Maybe in reply to: Glenn Overby II: "169:14 - INVALID +2"
• Next in thread: Glenn Overby II: "Re: 169:14 - INVALID +2"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST