1,942
edits
Changes
no edit summary
:Having a verbal chat to the VG would basically be of no use to anyone. But I can't see the real harm in going straight to the, well, [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/336400.html unflattering analogy] on this one - the point of the original research clause is to say that you can't cite your own blog post in an argument, but the VG is a knowledgable (even authoratative) third-party.
:Oh, and as an addemdum, the e-mail has to be made public (in this case, posted online with the VGs explicit permission), otherwise it's uncitable. — by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 23:22, August 25, 2008 (UTC)
And, to support the point that Wilibrord wishes to make, the V-G would have to expressly state that (1) the Metropolitan has formally rescinded his letter of authorization; and (2) that no AWRV paarish is any longer permitted to use the SASB. Otherwise it is vacuous to claim that the OM is the "only" authorized authorized service book that may be used by the AWRV. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:28, August 25, 2008 (UTC)
