From: Glenn Overby II (guardcaptain_at_earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Sep 27 2001 - 08:28:41 PDT
Thank you for your courteous input. (I knew I wasn't particularly well-schooled for taking up this bench!) I still believe that 169:6 violates the spirit of RO4. But I am convinced that the past precedents and practices of the Committee as presented do in fact allow this rule to be considered VALID. My initial ruling being at variance with this, I reverse it. Rule 169:6 is VALID. I am still preparing my response to the questions raised on 169:7. Da Judge -- Rule Date: 2001-09-27 15:30:13 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST