Robert's Rules?? Hippo Logic.

[Mike Ossipoff]

DEMOREP1 at aol.com writes:
> 
> In view of the recent Don and Mike interchanges/attacks, I note again that
> there is something called "Decorum in Debate".  See Robert's Rules of Order,
> Newly Revised, 1990 edition, pp. 386- 389.
> 
> Some of the paragraph headings are- refraining from attacking a member's
> motives, addressing all remarks through the chair,  and avoiding the use of
> members' names. 

We've been routinely using the name of the person to whom we reply. Our
mailer software is set up to say "_____ writes:"  It would be
difficult to keep it a secret, to whom one is replying.

And you just violated Robert's Rules of Order when you mentioned
my name in the above-quoted message. Shame on you. :-)

I suppose I could have used a code-name, like "Hippo-Logic", to
replace a name.  But actually, maybe that code-name would be
too obvious, due to the obvious hippo-logic in the the 1st
message that I'm not replying to, where it says that IRO is
better, based on a standard that sounds suspiciously like a
definition of IRO's procedure, and which isn't justified other
than by itself. It's ok for a method to be a blatant re-statement
of a desired standard, as is Condorcet's method. But the standard
has to be desirable for some reason other than that it meets
itself. In the case of Condorcet's method, the standards are
already widely agreed to be important, and were so agreed long
before Condorcet's method was proposed.

Well, in this reply to Demorep, I've already replied to something
in Don's message, so I'll have to say that I won't reply
to any of Don's messages received after the time of making
that announcement that I made. That's a reasonable interpretation
of the announcement, one that at least stays within  the spirit
of its meaning, if not its literal meaning.

Then, since I've already replied to something in Don's
last message received before my announcement, I might as
well reply to the rest of it, which I'll do in a subsequent
message.

But back to the Demorep message to which I'm now replying:

I wasn't aware that we'd agreed to abide by Robert's Rules of
Order. So why are you quoting that authority on how things
should be done? Your invoking of Robert's Rules of Order
is out of order.

> 
> .-
> 


--