root wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I also support this. > > By the way, I think ais523's judgement is reasonable; I'm only > supporting this on the grounds that e really shouldn't have been > assigned to it in the first place.
I was thinking that myself, but I have to assign /something/ to em. (E almost got randomly assigned to 2211; I missed overriding it at first, but hand-patched the DB before sending it out.) I intend to continue being vaguely sloppy about this sort of thing, as a standing object lesson to initiators who forget to disqualify.
