234:9

From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: Sat Apr 09 2005 - 12:40:39 PDT

• Next message: Aron Wall: "Judgement 234:9 VALID +2 Style"
• Previous message: Arnt Gulbrandsen: "Re: 234:6"
• Next in thread: Aron Wall: "Judgement 234:9 VALID +2 Style"
• Reply: Aron Wall: "Judgement 234:9 VALID +2 Style"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

The tenth valid rule of this round ought not to be confused with the
tenth rule of this round, which will be coming up Very Soon Now.  If
there is one at all, that is.

The tenth rule of this round shall, if valid, explain at least one
method by which the TVRotR could satisfy the restriction in 234:3.

• Next message: Aron Wall: "Judgement 234:9 VALID +2 Style"
• Previous message: Arnt Gulbrandsen: "Re: 234:6"
• Next in thread: Aron Wall: "Judgement 234:9 VALID +2 Style"
• Reply: Aron Wall: "Judgement 234:9 VALID +2 Style"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

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