Dan Honemann Posted February 18, 2022 at 03:17 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2022 at 03:17 PM On 2/18/2022 at 8:50 AM, J. J. said: That is where I am running into a problem, but the problem is more related to the principle that the expression of some things prohibits unmentioned things of the same class. Making that determination seems to be a very grey area. Some people here have made the argument that these things are of a different class, but I'm seeing any to determine if the items are truly of a different class. Well J.J., if you are running into a problem I'm afraid that it is one of your own making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted February 18, 2022 at 07:49 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2022 at 07:49 PM Mr. Martin's response, "I don't see...", Mr. Gerber's response, "The difference is...", and Mr. Honemann's response, "No, not necessarily...", are particularly instructive for me. I thank each of them for his helpfulness. 🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 18, 2022 at 08:52 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2022 at 08:52 PM On 2/18/2022 at 2:49 PM, Rob Elsman said: Mr. Martin's response, "I don't see...", Mr. Gerber's response, "The difference is...", and Mr. Honemann's response, "No, not necessarily...", are particularly instructive for me. I thank each of them for his helpfulness. 🙂 I did struggle for awhile deciding between "No, not necessarily.", and "It depends." 🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 18, 2022 at 11:55 PM Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2022 at 11:55 PM On 2/18/2022 at 10:17 AM, Dan Honemann said: Well J.J., if you are running into a problem I'm afraid that it is one of your own making. No. When someone has to claim that an agenda is not a document, it is not my problem. This conversation has shown how unclear the principle of 56:68 #4 is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted February 19, 2022 at 04:18 AM Report Share Posted February 19, 2022 at 04:18 AM On 2/18/2022 at 6:55 PM, J. J. said: This conversation has shown how unclear the principle of 56:68 #4 is. Sorry, J.J., but you're alone on this one. The principle is clear. Your application of it is incorrect where you refuse to accept that General Orders and New Business are different classes of business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 19, 2022 at 01:02 PM Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2022 at 01:02 PM On 2/18/2022 at 11:18 PM, Atul Kapur said: Sorry, J.J., but you're alone on this one. The principle is clear. Your application of it is incorrect where you refuse to accept that General Orders and New Business are different classes of business. Sorry, you are unable to distinguish between which "class" should be used. It it a class of motions, i.e. a main motion or a class of business, i.e. new business. I am not the only one on this thread who has noticed this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 2, 2022 at 05:57 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2022 at 05:57 PM On 2/18/2022 at 3:52 PM, Dan Honemann said: I did struggle for awhile deciding between "No, not necessarily.", and "It depends." 🙂 That's often a tough decision, especially when the answer is not necessarily obvious, and depends on the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts