On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn <jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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'.
Well, lets repeal it now, and if you ever think of something special to do with it, feel free to bring it back. -- Charles Walker
