In a message dated 5/24/2008 5:11:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, abd@lomaxdesign.com writes:
there used to be a claim that "Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised" recommends "IRV" in such and such a situation. This claim, with exact wording, has been repeated all over the net, and not just on Wikipedia mirrors. It has shown up on the web sites of election clerks explaining proposals to the public. Is it true?
Turns out that what the source actually says is ... different.>>
------
Proving that someone sourced a quote or paraphrase badly is not the same as saying that we must be familiar with every source in order to fix badly writen sentences. Quite a different animal alltogether.
Will Johnson
************** Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
At 09:31 PM 5/24/2008, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Proving that someone sourced a quote or paraphrase badly is not the same as saying that we must be familiar with every source in order to fix badly writen sentences. Quite a different animal alltogether.
This is getting irritating. Nobody has said "we must be familiar with every source in order to fix badly written sentences." It's offensive to take a moderate statement by someone and turn it into what is extreme, presenting that, now distorted, as what others are saying. A bit ironic, eh?