Re: 176:9 INVALID, -1.0

From: Stephen Turner (sret1_at_ntlworld.com)
Date: Wed Feb 06 2002 - 14:34:35 PST


On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Alan Riddell wrote:
>
> Urm, I never recieved 176:8 (or 150:8) or a judgement on such a rule?  Dont
> think my spam filters would have filtered it out?

Well, it definitely reached the list! Maybe your mail broke for a while?
I'll send it to you privately.

--
Stephen Turner, Cambridge, UK    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adelie/stephen/
"This is Henman's 8th Wimbledon, and he's only lost 7 matches." BBC, 2/Jul/01

--
Rule Date: 2002-02-06 22:34:58 GMT


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