[EM] Comments re Robert's Rules of Order

[RLSuter at aol.com]

In a message dated 8/5/05 11:31 AM EDT, Abd ul-Rahman
Lomax writes:

> At 06:55 PM 8/4/2005, RLSuter at aol.com 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.