Hieu H. Huynh Posted July 18, 2015 at 02:40 PM Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 at 02:40 PM I may have an interesting item. On page 182, lines 12-13 say"Is debatable; but debate is limited in that is must not go into the merits of the main question". . . Should it say"Is debatable; but debate is limited in that it must not go into the merits of the main question". . .? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 18, 2015 at 02:53 PM Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 at 02:53 PM I may have an interesting item. On page 182, lines 12-13 say"Is debatable; but debate is limited in that is must not go into the merits of the main question". . . Should it say"Is debatable; but debate is limited in that it must not go into the merits of the main question". . .? Yep, you've found a typo in the 11th edition, which is something that's not easy to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 18, 2015 at 04:47 PM Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 at 04:47 PM And I trust that it SHALL (not SHOULD) be fixed in the next printing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted July 20, 2015 at 04:33 PM Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 at 04:33 PM Would a separate topic on typos in RONR and RONRIB be useful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 20, 2015 at 06:09 PM Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 at 06:09 PM On 7/20/2015 at 0:33 PM, Hieu H. Huynh said: Would a separate topic on typos in RONR and RONRIB be useful? Perhaps not, since I don't think there are that many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted January 18, 2016 at 04:52 AM Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 at 04:52 AM Note: The previous replies in this topic were split off from here: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/25927-must-shall-should-may-c/#comment-146994 Please feel free to point out additional errors in new posts below. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Rempel Posted January 18, 2016 at 07:36 PM Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 at 07:36 PM The word "be" is missing between the words "must" and "called" in the 11th Edition, p. 387, line 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 18, 2016 at 08:15 PM Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 at 08:15 PM 5 hours ago, alr said: The word "be" is missing between the words "must" and "called" in the 11th Edition, p. 387, line 21 Indeed it is. So we now have Messrs. Hieu H. Huynh and alr tied for first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted January 18, 2016 at 08:27 PM Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 at 08:27 PM 13 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: So we now have Messrs. Hieu H. Huynh and air tied for first place. I think "alr" is Ann L. Rempel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Rempel Posted January 18, 2016 at 08:28 PM Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 at 08:28 PM alr concedes to Hieu because alr didn't find the typo. A student with better eyes pointed it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 18, 2016 at 08:54 PM Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 at 08:54 PM At least everyone here won't beat this to death the way a certain friend of ours harassed the 10th Edition A-Team, even 10 years after it's publication: "the adorable misspelling of "millennium" on p. VI, and the indelicate typo on p. 630, line 33." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Rempel Posted January 18, 2016 at 11:08 PM Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 at 11:08 PM GEORGE!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted January 19, 2016 at 05:33 PM Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2016 at 05:33 PM How about this one from the In Brief book: At the bottom of page 48 of RONRIB, the last word in the box is "resolution". Should it be "motion" instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted January 24, 2016 at 10:43 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2016 at 10:43 PM On 1/19/2016 at 0:33 PM, Hieu H. Huynh said: How about this one from the In Brief book: At the bottom of page 48 of RONRIB, the last word in the box is "resolution". Should it be "motion" instead? Probably it should. Unfortunately, there are quite a few mistakes in RONRIB, although this one was not yet on our list! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted January 25, 2016 at 01:20 AM Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 at 01:20 AM In the 11th edition: On page 618, line 34, the reference "p. 607, ll. 18-21" doesn't seem to be related to "the seating of delegates and alternates" from the previous line. Should it be some other reference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Rempel Posted January 26, 2016 at 01:19 AM Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 at 01:19 AM 23 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said: In the 11th edition: On page 618, line 34, the reference "p. 607, ll. 18-21" doesn't seem to be related to "the seating of delegates and alternates" from the previous line. Should it be some other reference? Perhaps the reference should be p. 607, ll. 24-29. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted January 27, 2016 at 02:33 AM Report Share Posted January 27, 2016 at 02:33 AM On 1/25/2016 at 8:20 PM, Hieu H. Huynh said: In the 11th edition: On page 618, line 34, the reference "p. 607, ll. 18-21" doesn't seem to be related to "the seating of delegates and alternates" from the previous line. Should it be some other reference? On 1/26/2016 at 8:19 PM, Ann Rempel, PRP, CPP-T said: Perhaps the reference should be p. 607, ll. 24-29. Page 607, ll. 18-21, in which RONR states, "The work of organizing and preparing for a convention normally . . . involves many committees, under the general direction of the officers and the board of the association" is indeed one of the intended references in relation to the rule on page 618 that "Until the proposed standing rules are adopted, the convention is governed by the rules in the organization's parliamentary authority." The placement of that reference next to the phrase "such as those concerning the seating of delegates and alternates" was perhaps inartful drafting, but I wouldn't call it a typographical error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 30, 2016 at 09:32 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 at 09:32 PM Zev points out a typo on page 320. See here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted April 7, 2016 at 09:26 PM Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 at 09:26 PM Other than what is mentioned in the topic that can be found here, does anyone know of typographical errors (misspelled entries, wrong page numbers, or the like) in the index of RONR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted April 13, 2016 at 03:39 AM Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 at 03:39 AM This is not specifically a typo, per se, but I feel that the paragraph at the bottom of pg. 263 and the top of pg. 264 could use some love. It begins by saying that a rule protecting absentees cannot be suspended, and then goes on to imply, but not directly say, that they can be suspended if there are no absentees. I think it should be explicit that, if all people protected by the rule are present, then the rule can be suspended (with the exception noted in the footnote). Additionally, I think it would be helpful to refer to this paragraph in the index under "suspension of notice of meetings" and similar things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted April 13, 2016 at 12:01 PM Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 at 12:01 PM 8 hours ago, Sean Hunt said: This is not specifically a typo, per se, but I feel that the paragraph at the bottom of pg. 263 and the top of pg. 264 could use some love. It begins by saying that a rule protecting absentees cannot be suspended, and then goes on to imply, but not directly say, that they can be suspended if there are no absentees. I think it should be explicit that, if all people protected by the rule are present, then the rule can be suspended (with the exception noted in the footnote). Additionally, I think it would be helpful to refer to this paragraph in the index under "suspension of notice of meetings" and similar things. Perhaps it ought to say: "Absentees who are present are not protected by rules protecting absentees, but even absentees who are present cannot consent to suspension of rules protecting absentees (unless there aren’t any, in which event they can). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted April 13, 2016 at 06:22 PM Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 at 06:22 PM Gee, that's close, but not on the nosey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 14, 2016 at 08:06 AM Report Share Posted April 14, 2016 at 08:06 AM 20 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: "Absentees who are present are not protected by rules protecting absentees, but even absentees who are present cannot consent to suspension of rules protecting absentees (unless there aren’t any, in which event they can). It's true that absentees who are present are not protected by rules protecting absentees who are absent, but surely they are protected by rules protecting absentees who are present, because they are both. The problem is that they don't need the protection unless they do, in which case it is too late. So it may be best just to leave the language as is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianP Posted March 23, 2019 at 09:23 AM Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 09:23 AM I'm just beginning in the book as my question is page 4. RONR (11th ed.) p. 4, l. 30 - the word "bases" should be "basis" to match RONR (11th ed.) p. 5, l.4 Sounds the same but there is a subtle difference in the meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Coronite Posted March 23, 2019 at 02:42 PM Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 02:42 PM 5 hours ago, BrianP said: I'm just beginning in the book as my question is page 4. RONR (11th ed.) p. 4, l. 30 - the word "bases" should be "basis" to match RONR (11th ed.) p. 5, l.4 Sounds the same but there is a subtle difference in the meaning. I think the first case is the plural of basis, which is why bases is used. The second case is singular. If anything, in your first case, perhaps the plural, decisions, would be a better fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts