Bzzzt. “Plain reading of the bylaws” is blatant question-begging. I quote the Bylaws, but you merely make unsupported assertions about what they say. Sorry, try again, and this time have the intellectual courage not to pretend I “claim that if a plain reading of the bylaws results in absurdity…”. That’s not what I said.
My argument has been clear since my first posting on this topic: http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2009/04/senator-joe-mcphillies-has-secret-list.html
And if you can’t wrap your brain around questions that make a reductio ad absurdam argument, then I quote from my third posting on this topic (which was still on the first day I started commenting on this topic):
Why can’t 8.4 violations be considered just another form of “involuntary resignation”? I can think of only one textually plausible answer: in the three places where the Bylaws indisputably talk about a vacancy happening, they use a form of the phrase “deemed vacant”. That construction is not used in 8.4. This absence has to be weighed against the pointlessness of 8.4 if it is not as self-enforcing as the consecutive-absence rule (or, the ill-craftedness of 8.4 if it is supposed to only constrain elections/appointments). Reasonable people can differ on this matter, but people simply acting on agendas will just call other people names.
——–It’s ridiculously false to claim I “declined to make [my] arguments explicit”. Don’t try to pull that nonsense on somebody who logs and indexes his writings. Feel free to keep it up; I can keep shaming you like this for weeks on end. Copy and paste makes it eeeeeasy.