In a message dated 8/5/05 11:31 AM EDT, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax writes: > At 06:55 PM 8/4/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>Some questions you need to answer. (1) assuming that Lomax is >>more familiar with RONR than Suter, does that disqualify Suter >>from commenting on RONR? That's what you seem to imply. > >I didn't see any such implication. >>
The implication you fail to see is abundantly clear if you read Dave Ketchum's post from the beginning. He started by saying: >Lomax demonstrates familiarity with Robert's Rules (RONR). > >Suter writes a LOTTA words, >> He later added: >Those doing such amending need to >understand RONR well enough to avoid >accidental destruction. In short, while Lomax "demonstrates familiarity," Suter merely "writes a LOTTA words," and since amending RONR requires not only familiarity with it but understanding it "well enough," Suter doesn't have the qualifications needed to propose revisions and be taken seriously. He should shut up until he has acquired an adequate understanding. ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
