Subject: Re: MN: Point of Order - Re: Game 4 Buzz on miKi.

From: kenningd@w... (L'homme a tete de choux)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 15:43:53 +0100

>I raise a point of order to the effect that the Judge's ruling is invalid. 
>It should be based on interpretation of the rules, as currently written. 

I dispute the claim that the meaning of the Rule has changed, and the inference
that my judgment is based on something other than the current wording of the
relevant rule.

I'd like to raise a Point of Order to invalidate miKi's Point of Order.

dave

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 13 Jul 98 16:36:26 +0100

>We 
>could use an Eprop on it anyway, just to tidy it up, if anyone 
>would care to submit one... 

On its way. 

As it happens, this whole affair has prompted me to trawl through 
the ruleset in looking for other such inconsistencies. Granted that this 
is something I've had down on my list of things to do for some Weeks, 
but for some reason up until this point I hadn't been able to come up 
with a suitable way of attacking the issue. Expect a large Proposal 
shortly. 

Ah, the wonders of grep... 

-- 
Dunx 
IRL: Duncan Ellis, Senior Software Engineer, Business Modelers, Oracle 
<I work for Oracle, I don't speak for them>