Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

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

2,016 profile views
  1. So ... Dan and I have been addressing each other by our given names since I guess the late 1990's, and, third-person, usually by honorific; the same with me and George Mervosh and Richard Brown, &c, &c. So I don't see how or where Transpower fits into this; maybe judging by his cognomen he's going to star in an upcoming Avengers movie and we can see him with his shirt off, and preferably with his hair parted on the side like a grown-up.
  2. I'm looking at the RONR MB thread "http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/30455-bylaws-what-takes-precedent/?page=2" . (Actually I copied the URL from where I was; I'm not specifically referring to Page 2.) Transpower says this: [Posted Friday at 09:45 AM ·] .... And: Daniel was a member of the authorship team, but he is no longer. Mr Honemann's reply includes this incidental [Aw nuts, I can't chop out all the chaff: please disregard it, pretend you're all George Mervosh]: Posted Friday at 10:06 AM · Report post "And "Daniel" is a bit presumptuous, I'm afraid." *** Then Greg Goodwiller said: [Posted Saturday at 01:17 PM · Report post] On 8/18/2017 at 10:06 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said: "And "Daniel" is a bit presumptuous, I'm afraid." Thank for this, Mr. Honemann. I have always appreciated the level of decorum that is practiced in this forum. It honors our profession. And I regret the extent to which this particular thread has not done so. *** But I'm nopt (the "p" is silent, or a typo) sure what the protocol is. Generally I myslef try to refer to posters with an honorific-appended surname in the third person*, but I use first names in the second person with those with whom I'm familiar: i.e., George or Richard (sometimes "Rich", depending on when I can guess he prefers), and even, to the point, "Dan". ("Dan" is a special case. Back in the 1890's, when he and I were little kids and the RONR MB website was in its formative stages, he posted only as "Dan" -- partly, I suspect, because he was trying to conserve bandwidth -- remember, in the 1890's, the Internet was powered by coal -- so I was perforce obliged to respond to his posts by calling him "Dan", because that was all I knew him as. He evolved to "Daniel Honemann" and eventually to "HIs Honemannship," but that didn't last long and he ratchetted it back -- there's probably no documentary evidence for this deluded period, probably only occurring during the 1950's.) So I'm wondering why Transpower's saying "Daniel" is presumptuous. My gut tells me yes it is, but not why. _________ * For the love of heaven, there's got to be a simpler description for the term, somebody please remind me what it is.
  3. On topic thread robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/29577-initial-motion/ , , right now the OP is labelled "Posted 6 hours ago"; the second post (i.e., the first reply), Kim Goldsworthy's, is labelled "Posted 4 hours ago," and likewise the next, Guest Zev's, "4 hours ago"; but then the next, Hieu H Huynh's, says "Posted 1 [sic, "one"] minute ago," but the post after his, OP Travis's, thanking him, is labelled "Posted 9 minutes ago". (The next post, mine, is labelled "Posted just now.") What in sam hill? ______________ N. B. The thread title is a pun. Ghaaah, I hate puns.
  4. Most likely a robot, like the one selling carborundum or gneiss ten years ago. (Ghod that makes me look old.)
  5. To make it clear, my original topic title was "Bluntly: incivility towards illiterates." I decided to change it, so as not to insult the people described; but in changing to "very bad typists," which I intended to be flagrantly a euphemism, I should have, in parallel, removed "Bluntly," because the title was no longer blunt. But apparently bluntness on this subject is overdue.
  6. That is so, so, so, not the point; it is so ... perfectly ... oblivious to the point.
  7. From the thread, "Meeting leaders", Richard Brown said, "I guess, though, that a couple of you are so perfect that you have never made such mistakes and that you certainly won't make any in this forum in the future. ? " What is so exasperating is that this says it so perfectly. But pointed 180 degrees off. O Shmuel, our first quarrel. Guest Who's had it exactly right. I think I did a disservice to Weldon, because, strictly speaking, what he said was not unjust, unkind, or inaccurate; and addressed itself strictly to the undeniable incomprehensibility of the Orignal post; I put him on the other side for appearing to agree unconditionally with Kim. Kinda the same with Richard. (Of course Nancy N. can do no wrong. Dan says so.) But Kim's was simply mocking and intended (obviously, unless you think he failed to convey what he intended to convey; I don't) to humiliate, or at least embarrass, the OP. That's the issue, then: I think it is monstrously unfair. You think they're just being lazy (or sloppy). I not only don't think so, I find it inconceivable. I'm rather convinced that a large number of them do not recognize -- and have not been able to recognize, from the third grade on, what difference it makes, or that it makes a difference. Come to think of it, I'll bet a large number of them would be completely oblivious to the point of Kim's post. From another point of view, consider (adapting a principle I think of as Jefferson's, but that goes back to Greece) that it would be better that a hundred lazy boors and sloppy, um, slobs slide without calling them on their discourtesy, than to risk humiliating one person -- remember, there was indeed an almost-blind, arthritically-knucked grandmother assisted by her granddaughter who had Downs syndrome -- who has likely already had more than enough of that.
  8. Seriously, thanks to all for the help. I wound up just cut-and-pasting the conversations onto Mousepad files, and put them on the hard drive here, and then deleted the originals from my RONR-MB Internal Messaging System Box ("RONRMBIMSB," as Homeland Security calls it, because that's easier to pronounce than "nerd notes," which they called them during the Obama presidency). You'd think with computers, it might, say, be less laborious, but at least now, having whacked away at it since Monday, I'm down to 42%.
  9. It's not complicated at all, I'm just astonished that when I write a message to Richard Brown, I get a copy, and if he replies, he gets a copy, but I get the original; so that when the conversation is done, we each have a transcript. But if his mailbox is full, like it is now (Spa fon? squa tront!, Mr Brown!), and mine is not, Like Now (!!!), then the post office just discards my messages to him, like they do with third-class ("junk") mail IRL, but I get to keep my own anyway? That's brilliant! Looks like I've been unjustly derogating the "upgrades" to the website all this time. Never really liked post-numbers, anyway.
  10. So I got a conversation, hit "options," and started to delete the conversation but a box came up saying: "Are you sure you want to delete this conversation? The conversation will be removed from your inbox and you will not be able to view or rejoin it. Other participants will continue to see it." So wait a minute. Where is it that the converation will now be stored (since not in my Inbox), so that "other participants will continue to see it"? -- And why are other participants allowed it see it but only I can't?
  11. Regarding the thread "Interim board members," by (initially) Guest Ken, begun I think yesterday and so far (and hopefully) ending today: I confess to having dropped the ball on minimizing confusion here on the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum, and I regret it. When, relatively early on, Ken said, "How about this .... ARTICLE ELEVEN -DUES ", I should have realized he was purely going on to some other subject, blithely abandoning the interim board members; so I should have aborted that, since we weren't done, by asking him to start another thread. Instead, I thought one thing somehow had to do with another, and awkwardly (with an attempt at humor) proceeded that way. As a result, there was some (commendably not a lot) confusion, discussing extending the dues having to do with the alleged interim board members. I could kick myself, if I weren't so old and emaciated and pudgy.
  12. Mage UI'n goin' home. If for ghodds sake I an spell it right.
  13. Which means, lotsa luck. Which is a cynical expression. Except that these days it might apply to Pollyannish (or Republican, which is which?) ... O never mind
  • Create New...