From: Leonhard, Christian (Christian_Leonhard_at_ADP.com)
Date: Mon Nov 25 2002 - 10:45:24 PST
> Hmm, if *I* were the judge[...] Case in point about the judge's ability to render their own decisions as they see fit. ;) There won't be any shortage of people offering you persuasive advice about the proper way to interpret things, but you should absolutely feel free to go with whatever makes most sense to you. Christian -----Original Message----- From: rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu [mailto:rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 1:41 PM To: 'frc_at_trolltech.no' Subject: Re: 197:4 "Leonhard, Christian" <Christian_Leonhard_at_ADP.com> writes: > > Doesn't propose a new rule. > > This rule's requirement was meant to be implicit: that each box contain > further boxes, each with a longer name than the last. Hmm, if *I* were the judge, I would have said this requirement was so implicit as to be without force, and would have docked a style point or so for not imposing a restriction. But imposing a restriction isn't required for validity. And I'm not the judge... -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY -- Rule Date: 2002-11-25 18:40:48 GMT _______________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- Rule Date: 2002-11-25 18:45:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST