Josh Martin Posted January 4, 2018 at 11:47 PM Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 at 11:47 PM 2 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said: I wonder why an organization with enough smarts to recognize the value of RONR and for that matter RONRIB in the first place would intentionally adopt RONRIB in the face of its explicit statement that it is not suitable for that purpose. That's got to be a mighty fine gradation of stupid, lying between "too stupid" and "just barely stupid enough". I guess they’re people who want a shorter parliamentary authority than RONR but have some sort of grudge against the authors of The Standard Code. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 6, 2018 at 05:01 AM Report Share Posted January 6, 2018 at 05:01 AM Heh. Yeah, but it's a poor omen when the very first rule that becomes applicable to your organization is one that you don't agree with. If the first sip from the milk carton is sour, what are the odds the rest of it will be any good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 6, 2018 at 01:25 PM Report Share Posted January 6, 2018 at 01:25 PM On 1/4/2018 at 4:35 PM, Gary Novosielski said: I wonder why an organization with enough smarts to recognize the value of RONR and for that matter RONRIB in the first place would intentionally adopt RONRIB in the face of its explicit statement that it is not suitable for that purpose. That's got to be a mighty fine gradation of stupid, lying between "too stupid" and "just barely stupid enough". On 1/4/2018 at 4:58 PM, Joshua Katz said: Possibly because its members think the authors of RONRIB got that wrong, and only that wrong? 7 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said: Heh. Yeah, but it's a poor omen when the very first rule that becomes applicable to your organization is one that you don't agree with. If the first sip from the milk carton is sour, what are the odds the rest of it will be any good? Although this last response from Mr. Novosielski is perhaps understandable if considered in a vacuum, I'm at a loss as to how to interpret it when I look at it in this context. I suppose this is because it's in response to Mr. Katz's effort to suggest a reason why an organization would intentionally do something which lies somewhere between "too stupid" and "just barely stupid enough". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts