roundtable: Re: cr-3-7LISTNAMEHEREgt; re: fear and panic -LISTNAMEHEREgt; Robert rules?

roundtable: Re: cr-3/7> re: fear & panic -> Robert rules?

Re: cr-3/7> re: fear & panic -> Robert rules?

Conal L Hession (esquire@creighton.edu)
Fri, 10 Mar 1995 16:21:35 -0600 (CST) 

Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 16:21:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Conal L Hession <esquire@creighton.edu>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Re: cr-3/7> re: fear & panic -> Robert rules?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950310102237.22068A-100000@access2.digex.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.91.950310161552.18749C-100000@bluejay.creighton.edu>


I have to voice my opposition to imposing or modifying Roberts Rules of 
Order.  While they have a purpose, if we seek and value open discussion, 
Roberts will kill that.  I know far too many experienced Parlimentarians 
who can use the rules adeptly to crush opposition and frustrate majority 
will or opposition.

I'm not sure what Robert's would offer that we can't avail ourselves of 
via moderated lists. (I know, at least the participants would have an 
illusion of control, but I think its overrated.)  In addition, flaming 
or intimidating participants could go on in any open list.  All the 
lurker has to do is grab my address and get busy, without ever involving 
the list as a whole.

Am I missing the point here?

BTW: I appreciate the discussion of content vs. usage based pricing and 
tariff possibilities.  I just don't have anything to say about it *yet*.

Conal Hession
esquire@creighton.edu

[CNI Home Page]