Re: 169:B

From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2001 - 09:47:14 PDT


Aron Wall <aron_at_wall.org> writes:

> Gallivanting Tripper wrote:
>
> > I vote against 165:A, because what went on 4 rounds ago is nobody's
> > business.
>
> Crumb.  Last time I made that mistake it led to a War.  I withraw my proposal
> and substitute an one for which 165 is replaced with 169 everywhere that it
> appears.  And a vote FOR the proposal.  And I shoot myself in the head.

I still vote AGAINST, because the rule numbers are wrong.

--
- Rich Holmes
  Syracuse, NY

--
Rule Date: 2001-10-03 16:47:30 GMT


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