On 6/7/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/7/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You should see the crap people have tried to pull
with IAR. Would I be
right in guessing off the tp of my head that the people trying to make
"be bold" more timid have previously failed to add subclauses and
riders to IAR?
Nah be bold has always been a lot more timid than certain people
appear to think (hasn't mattered for the most part since most people
only edit articles).
Subclauses on IAR are irrelevant since there should never be any need
to cite IAR.
Huh? Then why do we have IAR in the first place? Citing it is terribly
useful when confronted with people who follow policies to the letter without
using their good judgment.
Johnleemk