Re: 229:1 (INVALID, +0.0)

From: Chuck Carroll (frc_at_chuckcarroll.org)
Date: Tue Dec 07 2004 - 22:42:42 PST

Next message: Bryan Donlan: "Round 229 summary"
Previous message: Bryan Donlan: "Re: 229:2 (VALID, +1.5)"
In reply to: Bryan Donlan: "Re: 229:1 (INVALID, +0.0)"
Next in thread: Chuck Carroll: "Re: 229:1 (INVALID, +0.0)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

>Places restrictions on a past round (221). INVALID.

Why would that invalidate the rule?

Chuck

Next message: Bryan Donlan: "Round 229 summary"
Previous message: Bryan Donlan: "Re: 229:2 (VALID, +1.5)"
In reply to: Bryan Donlan: "Re: 229:1 (INVALID, +0.0)"
Next in thread: Chuck Carroll: "Re: 229:1 (INVALID, +0.0)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

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