On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Sonya Shaver <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I wouldn't think that would matter. The table is still supporting all its
> weight. If that was the case, then I think the rule would say it has to be
> *touching* the table. And it just says supporting all its weight. So, I
> would think that if the grocery units are in a jumble on the table, just not
> with anything else holding them, then they would all count.
> That is my interpretation, and I hope that's right! :) Hopefully Steve
> will chime in.
> Sonya in Harrisonburg
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Heather Dyson <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am I correct in that the groceries cannot be on top of other groceries on
>> the table since it says the table has to support all its weight?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Heather Dyson
>> ________________________________
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or CHANGE your settings, please visit
>>
https://listserv.jmu.edu/archives/vadcfll-l.html and select "Join or leave
>> the list".
>> VADCFLL administrative announcements are sent via VADCFLL-ANNOUNCEMENTS-L.
>> Visit
https://listserv.jmu.edu/archives/vadcfll-announcements-l.html to
>> subscribe.
>
> ________________________________
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or CHANGE your settings, please visit
>
https://listserv.jmu.edu/archives/vadcfll-l.html and select "Join or leave
> the list".
> VADCFLL administrative announcements are sent via VADCFLL-ANNOUNCEMENTS-L.
> Visit
https://listserv.jmu.edu/archives/vadcfll-announcements-l.html to
> subscribe.