2009/10/22 Roger Hicks <pidge...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:38, Charles Walker > <charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Roger Hicks <pidge...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:25, Charles Walker >>> <charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I can understand some of these objections, but why are you against >>>> repealing a Rule which has only an unused definition in it? >>>> >>> I thought it was a useful definition, even if it is currently unusued. >> >> How can something that isn't used possibly be useful? >> > Hey, no one said my reasoning had to be logical :) > > BobTHJ > Oh, but it is. The key word is 'currently'.
-- -Tiger
