[ga] On the issue of RROR from www.constitution.org

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

Several of you have seen fit to quote some of the more context-
dependent rules from www.constitution.org, such as the manner in which
to address a lady, and then proceeded to use this as an argument
against RR and parliamentary procedure as a whole.

I would like to point out that the text available on
www.constitution.org is the original text from the 1915 copy of RR --
the 4th edition of the work, the first "revised" version of the rules,
and probably the first copy widely adopted by deliberative bodies.  It
was written to reflect the needs of the time, as are all rules for
deliberative bodies, as are the set I adapted to our purposes.

I would also like to point out that the work has evolved for almost
100 years.  Using colloquialisms present in an 85-year-old copy to
dismiss the entire concept of parliamentary procedure is like arguing
against all manners because covering a lady's passage with your cloak
seems silly and outmoded.


-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA