From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: Tue Apr 02 2002 - 13:05:33 PST
Aron Wall <aron_at_wall.org> wrote: > > >I shall treat the rule as INVALID on the presumption that this proposal > > >will > > >pass unless it doesn't look like it will pass. > > > > Something curious about this proposal in that he will still be eligible for > > another week. > > How so? Proposal 180:A doesn't explicitly adjust Karl's eligibility. However, I think that Regular Ordinance #4 automatically does so; it doesn't care whether a rule became invalid via judgement, timeout, or overrule proposal. -- Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com> "I'm not sure I can go through http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/ with it. Leave, I mean." -- Rule Date: 2002-04-02 22:50:36 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST