Gary c Tesser

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gary c Tesser

  • Rank
    aspiring parliamentarian ($4.50 / hr, but I can deal)

Profile Information

  • Location
    Brooklyn NY USA
  • Interests
    I'm interested in finding out how to set "status". I'm also interested in advising everybody not to post their birthdate, because it just makes it easier for criminals .

Recent Profile Visitors

812 profile views
  1. Or, they might get lucky?
  2. We regulars on the website should; new person Elaine A might very well be unaware of them, and either way, it looked to me like she was thanking him for his immediate reply. Everything else -- and I agree his contributions are immense and, unless I misremember, unerring -- is tangential, or dare I suggest it, not germane. OK, but his reply, while saving her the time and trouble of poring through those 700+ pages, still was rather skeletal. If, instead of thanking him, Elaine A had said, ~"Thank you, but does that mean that the answer to my question, 'Can the 2nd VP or the treasurer request the list of members?' is yes?"~, then is is that follow-up question asking, repetitiously, what he already answered; or did he actually not answer that latter, embracing question? I submit that he did not. [Readers kindly disregard the following quote-box, which should not be there; or, if a reply box doesn't appear because the software, damn its nonexistent soul, deleted as I had previously requested that it do but, as of posting it had not, then never mind, kindly proceed to the rest of my fulminatory rant.] Indeed: to say, "No rule in RONR prohibits it." is an unimpeachable stock answer, and you and I and others have all used it. But sometimes it will be enough to satisfactorily inform the questioner, and sometimes not. I think in this instance it is not. But if, for example, Mr. Huynh's reply had included ~'it might be that your own, or other, governing rules, prohibit it; but here, on The World's Premier Internet Parliamentary Website Forum, we cannot address whatever those other rules may say; we can only deal with what Robert's Rules says,'~ then I think that would appropriately flesh out the six-word answer as it now appears. Consequently, I sheepishly concede that my reply to Mr. Huynh's reply was itself skeletal.
  3. Elaine A, Mr Martin has told you (in accurate summary, AFAIK) what RONR says "good standing" means (I think it's in a footnote around page 5; I would check for you but my fingers are way over here on the keyboard and my book is way over there under my right elbow; you might say, OK, you soi-disant (word of the day) Gary person, you're left-handed (which you probably didn't know, but might have guessed by now, if not demonstrably from my linguistic inclinations not to mention my eccentric typography) so it's easy as 3.14 (easy as pi, get it?) to reach over there with your facile left hand and pluck that book out from under that right elbow, although what then will that right elbow lean on? ) -- but you know what? Pfui. Elaine A, why don't you just look in your own darn copy. Unless you don't have one. In which case, that's a deficit that you should remedy ASAP; but, if in the meantime, if you want to know, then please write back and I, or someone else (like, say, my fiancee or doppelganger,, Nancy N, after sundown) will very probably tell you. But: we here, the regular (if somewhat irregular, some would say daffy) habitue's [sp?] of The World's Premier Internet Parliamentary Forum (or so I keep saying, with lamentably nugatory (or maybe "negligible" I forget which is which ) backup (or support, I forget which is which)) are supposed to discuss what Robert's Rules says, maybe what we think it means, but we can't tell you what your own group's rules mean: that's for your group itself to determine. (Of course, if you want to, you can hire a parliamentarian, or even an aspiring parliamentarian like me or Richard Brown, although he's a lawyer, but I don't hold that against him, unlike his right leg, which he habitually holds against his left leg, like lawyers typically tediously do, because law school indoctrinated them to think that that's what legs are for -- Great Steaming Cobnuts, dear Elaine A., do you know how much money they spend to go to law school, and that's what they learn, to rub their legs together? LIke Boy Scouts trying to light a fire with sticks? Except that Boy Scouts have to trudge out into the woods to find sticks to rub together but lawyers often find legs inside their pants but Good Heavens, I'm certainly not gonna look, because interpreting bylaws is something that trained, experienced, veteran parliamentarians are supposed to be good at. You can see from my ID on the post that I ask for $4.50 and hour, but I can deal, but probably you can get a better offer from Mr Brown or Mr Honemann or Mr Balch or some other lawyer.) Now I'm wondering what Elaine A. was asking about.
  4. Thanks for what?
  5. O Great Steaming Cobnuts, Dan, you think he's been talking about the United States Senate all this time, not his own local universitiy's? I'm finally getting the idea (I, a glacially slow and immeasurably ponderous thinker, of dour and lugubrious mien). And if so, why would not the Advanced Discussion (sub-)Forum on this, the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum, soi-disant, or so I like to assert, be an appropriate venue for discussion of tangential parliamentary matters, considering where General Robert's source material came from?
  6. What if that bylaws provision were deleted first? Do you say that the US Constitution's Article V (since they didn't have a "5" when the Constitution was written, Arabic numerals were introduced in the 1920's for labelling bottles of one-fifth of a gallon -- I know this because I read it on the Internet just after I wrote it), where it says "The Congress ... shall propose amendments ... provided ... that no State, without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate", could be amended out, as easily as anything else, like the right to drink or women vote (but not drink women, good heavens I was kidding the other day about cannibalism and zombies*)? _________ *And probably kidding about it now too.
  7. Someone please wake up Dr Stackpole!
  8. So what in sam hill, JJ??!!?
  9. I'd look it up but Richard Brown was going to buy me a copy of PL in San Antonio in 2003 but Rod Davidson and his sister went and dragged us off to lunch or dinner, day after day, and we never got around to it. Also it was September and my birthday six months away (unlike now).
  10. I don't get it, are these two statements somehow consistent??
  11. Only the question of "You don't fire me, I quit" vs. "No, we're darn well firing you."
  12. Hey, bud, nice work.
  13. Until this post of Godelfan's, this take would not have occurred to me, but now -- sorry, Gandalf -- I think I like it.
  14. I'm overlooking the requirement for this in RONR: someone point it out, please?
  15. What kind of magic could turn minutes into a city?