Subject: Subtle issue of JMRG law Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 18:08:41 -0500 From: "Schwartz, Joseph" Fellows, It occurs to me that we not only have to determine whether a requirement of physical presence should be our rule, but, crucially, whether it is our rule (though, of course, I know your sentiments on both issues). This is because, even if I succeed in persuading you that it should not be our rule, if it is our rule, we will have to wait until our next physical congregation to change that rule. Though, now that I think of it, we could act now and ratify our actions later. In any case, it's my position that physical presence neither is nor should be our rule. From: Raphael Goldman Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:17:56 -0800 (PST) That dog won't hunt, sir: as I remember it, the rule is that physical presence is required. But there's a second--or perhaps first, since I brought it up earlier, albeit to no response from the group--point: didn't we already ratify the creation of a seal at the High Fiona Eve Quorum? If not, I urge--but do not make a motion--you to complete work so that we can look at it, talk about it, email about it, and otherwise ponder it in preparation for ratification on 12/31/05. From: "Safran, Joshua" Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:28:46 -0800 My good sir Ombudsman is correct, we approve the making of a seal, but we still have to ratify it officially. As we did our mascot, no? And, sir, technophilic Rector-Whip, why else would quora be so "elusive" and so celebrated and requiring the members to "meet" and be subject to claims regarding their "legitimacy" if email counted. In addition, I submit the plain meaning of "quorum," and let us put this puppy to sleep or at least to bed: A select number of English justices of the peace formerly required to be present at sessions to constitute a lawful bench, from Latin, of whom, genitive plural of qui who "to be present at sessions" is strong language From: "Schwartz, Joseph" Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 18:28:53 -0500 I do not accept that the rule is or has been physical presence. There was no discussion of a seal at the HFEQ. Yet another reason PP is a silly rule is that we can carry on all sorts of business, declare them all non-binding, and then ratify them when we meet next. From: Devon Strolovitch [mailto:dls38@cornell.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 4:06 PM joe, make your damn seal and settle down. From: "Safran, Joshua" Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:06:38 -0800 hear, hear! From: "Schwartz, Joseph" Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 19:38:34 -0500 This is a travesty, and I want it on record that the JMRG acted foolishly today because, according to it, we would be breaking with tradition to act sensibly. And this from a brotherhood whose rites derive from the inherent reason of Nature. I'll get going on that seal, then. From: Raphael Goldman Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:53:23 -0800 (PST) Correction: we did not act foolishly, but rather failed to act sensibly. It's a whole different thing. Besides, I don't know why you're giving up the fight. Though you are outvoted by we men who have sufficient dedication to keep track of this ongoing conversation and/or firewalls that prevent us from looking at porn, we still don't have votes from Dan, Jeffy or Mark Graham. With a little ingenuity and a bag of BigMacs, you could still win a majority vote. Of course, the vitality of such a vote would surely be contested, since the vote would concern the legitimacy of the vote itself. A true metaphysical quandry that would be, yar. From: "Schwartz, Joseph" Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 22:27:56 -0500 I don't think we have a metaphysical quandry provided a majority agrees physical presence never was the rule. But you broke my will, and given the nugatory consequences of the outcome (considering the eventual ratification of our electronic actions), and the spectral nature of the remaining fellows, I'm turning my energies to the Great Seal.