Ian Kelly wrote:
>The following letter was recently passed to me, and I hereby publish
>it with the intent that it become a proposal.
Due to the conventions of the letter structure, I believe Rule 1789 is
explicitly named as a coauthor in that proposal. I wonder what it could
do with its VC.
You
root wrote:
I've been around since 1998 -- 9 years! -- but how often do I get
noticed? Twice in my whole life I've been invoked, and one of those
times was a full two years before I hatched, so you can't really say
that it counts! Let's face it, around here I'm appreciated about as
much as one
On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You didn't give a title for the proposal.
Oh, bother. For lack of a better title, let's call it "Recantus Cygneus".
-root
On 6/19/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> I've been around since 1998 -- 9 years! -- but how often do I get
> noticed? Twice in my whole life I've been invoked, and one of those
> times was a full two years before I hatched, so you can't really say
> that it counts! Let's
Ian Kelly wrote:
>That's not even close to what the Registrar's report claims.
The historical matter in the Registrar's report is not entirely accurate.
Most obviously, there's an alleged deregistration by Writ that predates
the enactment of rule 1789. Rectification awaits more complete mail logs
On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
>That's not even close to what the Registrar's report claims.
The historical matter in the Registrar's report is not entirely accurate.
Most obviously, there's an alleged deregistration by Writ that predates
the enactment of rule 178
6 matches
Mail list logo
