|
Wed Oct 01, 2003, 09:43am
|
|||
|
|||
|
As to the original point of this thread...
The wording of the rule originally cited is just another example (IMO) of ASA's fractured syntax. This happens when a fairly complicated document gets partial revision every year by committee vote and has only rarely been comprehensively re-edited.
Even though it reads funny, I don't ultimately see any contradiction (taking the rule as a whole, including the exception) or any confusion as to meaning.
__________________
Tom 
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Threaded Mode
