Re: 229:1 (INVALID, +0.0)

From: Chuck Carroll (frc_at_chuckcarroll.org)
Date: Sat Dec 11 2004 - 08:18:42 PST

• Next message: Bryan Donlan: "Re: 229:1 (INVALID, +0.0)"
• Previous message: David Nicol: "229 protest"
• Maybe in reply to: Bryan Donlan: "Re: 229:1 (INVALID, +0.0)"
• Next in thread: Bryan Donlan: "Re: 229:1 (INVALID, +0.0)"
• Reply: Bryan Donlan: "Re: 229:1 (INVALID, +0.0)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

>> >Places restrictions on a past round (221). INVALID.
>> 
>> Why would that invalidate the rule?
>
>I was under the impression that rules must not place restrictions on
>any other rounds. Is this wrong?

I don't see anything in the ROs about that.

Chuck

• Next message: Bryan Donlan: "Re: 229:1 (INVALID, +0.0)"
• Previous message: David Nicol: "229 protest"
• Maybe in reply to: Bryan Donlan: "Re: 229:1 (INVALID, +0.0)"
• Next in thread: Bryan Donlan: "Re: 229:1 (INVALID, +0.0)"
• Reply: Bryan Donlan: "Re: 229:1 (INVALID, +0.0)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

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