In a message dated 8/4/05 5:23:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Lomax demonstrates familiarity with Robert's Rules (RONR). Suter writes a LOTTA words, for which I have general thoughts: >> 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. (2) Lomax writes a lot more words than Suter. Are you saying that all of Lomax's words make sense and none of Suter's do? (3) Is it possible that you haven't read Suter's words very carefully? (4) Is it possible that your biases in favor of RONR are preventing you from carefully considering Suter's words? (5) Is there any chance in hell that Suter may be at least partly rignt and you and/or Lomax may be at least partly wrong, or are you so absolutely certain about the near infallibility of RONR that you refuse to consider that any but very minor occasional revisions of RONR will ever ever be needed, no matter what voting method researchers and meeting process researchers and creative meeting organizers may ever discover? -Ralph ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info