Re: 185:5: INVALID, +1.4

From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 12:00:57 PDT

• Next message: Jonathan Van Matre: "RE: Discussion topic"
• Previous message: Aron Wall: "Re: 185:5: INVALID, +1.4"
• Maybe in reply to: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: 185:5: INVALID, +1.4"
• Next in thread: Jesse Welton: "Re: 185:5: INVALID, +1.4"
• Reply: Jesse Welton: "Re: 185:5: INVALID, +1.4"
• Reply: Karl Low: "Re: 185:5: INVALID, +1.4"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Perhaps my ruling was not sufficiently clear.  The inconsistency is
not between 185:5 and some future rule; the inconsistency is between
185:5 and the ROs, because 185:5 in combination with the ROs requires
that future rules, in order to be declared VALID, must be declared
INVALID.

--
- Rich Holmes
  Syracuse, NY

--
Rule Date: 2002-05-30 19:01:29 GMT

• Next message: Jonathan Van Matre: "RE: Discussion topic"
• Previous message: Aron Wall: "Re: 185:5: INVALID, +1.4"
• Maybe in reply to: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: 185:5: INVALID, +1.4"
• Next in thread: Jesse Welton: "Re: 185:5: INVALID, +1.4"
• Reply: Jesse Welton: "Re: 185:5: INVALID, +1.4"
• Reply: Karl Low: "Re: 185:5: INVALID, +1.4"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

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