Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Gary c Tesser

Members
  • Posts

    3,136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gary c Tesser

  1. In the discussion thread "Counselor", by Guest Abc123, URL http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/29485-counselor , fairly regular poster Guest Who's, &c, asks: "I believe Mr. Huynh alludes to the possibility that this committee is under the authority of the society and not the board. In that case, does its rejection of the motion it was empowered to decide put the proposal beyond the reach of the board, in accordance with RONR (11th ed.), p. 577, ll. 23–28?" I request more follow-up on this than what appeared there, please, viz. (or "i.e.", I forget which is which), pretty much me whining and George bleating.
  2. So the board members are just spending their own personally donated money. Huh. -- Which means, your board members write to each other and say, ~"Heh, let's all chip in for this."~ Huh. And Dinner Guest [brilliant, RB, BTW] points out: So is it that no one is refusing the board members' donations, but some assert that the solicitation, by e-mail, as purported official communication of the organization, is invalid? Huh. And we want to know what to make of this, as far as RONR is concerned? Huh.
  3. Most likely a robot, like the one selling carborundum or gneiss ten years ago. (Ghod that makes me look old.)
  4. Point well taken. I apologize.
  5. ... and: ... but: I don't quite follow how these two statements dovetail (and possibly I never have). Would someone refresh me please (and OP Guest D Barber might be watching too)?
  6. Nothing to apologize for, Mr Brown loves saying that once or twice a week.
  7. sue w., indulge me, please, in an at best tangential question, and I'm sure the moderator is going to like this one. I'm interested in how people write, and I noticed that if I were to have written your post here, I wouldn't have made a new paragraph for the second sentence, just continued the first paragraph, consisting of the first sentence. It's an intriguing stylistic choice: I see that the effect is different, but I can't put my finger on it. I'm reminded of the Nero Wolfe story where he said something like, choice in paragraphing is as unique as fingerprints (I think it was the story where he solved the case by the way a writer used the expression "not for nothing." If you don't remember it, read it again; it is such a hoot. I can look it up for you if you want. -- That offer is open to everybody). So (hey, should this start a new paragraph??), sue w., what went into your choice to start a second paragraph? Your fan, Gary c Tesser (aspiring parliamentarian) Oh, and this inquiry is open to everybody who is interested in how writing works. Me and Nero Wolfe can't be the only ones.
  8. (??!?) I think this is a good idea. (It's not perfect: the distressed VP wants his point of view heard as much as he wants to vote. Probably more, since the vote was unanimous without his, but his voice might have had an effect.) For that matter, perhaps an extra-parliamentary device might do the trick: he phones the meeting (safely, since he's driving a car), and the recipient holds his phone to the microphone, so everybody hears what the VP has to say, which satisfies him (with or without a proxy or electronic vote), and that's that.
  9. This question intrigues me, and I'm unsure of the answer. I'd guess yes, but I'd like a more specific citation to back me up (or shoot me down). I hesitate to continue the discussion here, because it would conflate two distinct but possibly confusingly related issues in one discussion thread, and I've had quite enough of that for one month (I'll be wincing any time I hear or read the word "interim," maybe till July).
  10. Fixter, I know this isn't an agony column, but I gotta ask: how did it go with the patient?
  11. mj (if I may presume to be so intimate), RONR's index is astonishingly comprehensive and spectacularly useful. I may tell you an illustrative story if I feel like typing later.
  12. (I have no idea why the computer poked the name of that sweet lovely Australian child Angourie Rice into my post, but I don't regret it, she deserves whatever show she gets.)
  13. OK, I tell you what. We can fob this off on the paint-by-numbers flick-of-the-wrist that this, the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum, is perforce constrained from interpreting the bylaws of specific organizations, but you know what, the supervisors are probably asleep here on the East Coast of the Western Hemisphere, and also here east of Flatbush Avenue, so maybe we can get away for a few hours. Look, this: Angourie Rice -- presupposes that these people are not members during the grace period. Sure that's debatable, and a question of interpreting the bylaws; but isn't it implied that they are still members, and that their membership -- not challenged, not disputed -- is in abeyance, somewhat suspended, in limbo -- is still the default presumption; and that we can niggle about it ad nauseam ... but for the love of Heaven, don't you people realize you have a finite life-span? -- Is this the way you want to spend the rest of it?
  14. nonsense won't do? wups. (I had first writ "nonsense"; that might be what GPN's "reprehensible" was a follow-up to. I don't want to impute intellection on Gary P. Novosiileski's part in parallel to either of my hypositories, he and I are probably in agreement on this, provided there's such a word as "hypositories," and maybe if there isn't. )
  15. I'm pretty sure there aren't any, except for the principles of interpretation on p. 588 - 591, which essentially say, be stupid as infrequently as possible for human beings: for example, when your bylaws say conduct elections in January and, woops, it's February, you don't need to explode the galaxy with your Death Star, you don't even have to dissolve your organization or even plunge it into paralysis until next January when you can maybe conduct your elections in the right month, just conduct them as soon as possible, as perhaps Richard Brown would have advised you had he not been plunged into the depths of despair in contemplation of your existential constitutional crisis.
  16. Uh huh. And the first hundred pages, with nary a rule in view, doesn't count. Most of fundamental Section 56, almost completely descriptive, doesn't count. Last four words on p. 299 are just rules. &c &c. I put it to you that RONR is -- perhaps sub rosa -- is not purely a rule book, but a work designed to help organizations get their work done; structured on the rules based on which we get things done, but not nearly only. (Otherwise, to be consistent, you should complain that those instructions to the Treasurer and Secretary are a waste of space, and duly eliminated, so as to reduce the page-count of the next edition?) I'm not saying it should be lit up in neon, I'm just saying it's so fundamental to the whole process that it shouldn't be relegated to fine print, and the point made only incidentally regarding something else. Come to think of it (and I just now am, so it demands some more thought), there are places in the book where it says, sometimes explicitly -- in contrast to the instructions the chair gives on p. 121, ~"OK, motion adopted, what's next is..."~ . Which doesn't give much space for getting the job done. as it has been for what, forty years, I guess since you Godelfan were maybe only a little kid
  17. And your RONR citation for this is where (mindful that the bottom of p.456 is nowhere specific enough)?
  18. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...