RE: 174 over?

From: Anton Cox (A.G.Cox_at_city.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Jan 18 2002 - 01:28:23 PST

• Next message: Jonathan Van Matre: "175 Begins"
• Previous message: Jonathan Van Matre: "RE: 174 over?"
• In reply to: Jonathan Van Matre: "RE: 174 over?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> Well, I haven't seen a rule.  I really didn't think 174:5 would prove to
> be such a round-killer.  I suppose we should await official word from
> the Judge, though -- perhaps he received one directly.
>

No need to wait. If it did not come to the committee, then it does not
count.

Anton

--
Rule Date: 2002-01-18 09:29:12 GMT

• Next message: Jonathan Van Matre: "175 Begins"
• Previous message: Jonathan Van Matre: "RE: 174 over?"
• In reply to: Jonathan Van Matre: "RE: 174 over?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

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