Mike Seebeck, reading absurdity into the Bylaws — as you’re doing, and as I’m not — is always an issue. You can look it up on p.570 of Robert’s Rules. You can run from it, but you can’t hide.
Or maybe your edition says “When a provision of the bylaws is susceptible to two meanings, one of which conflicts with or renders absurd another bylaw provision that Mike Seebeck is willing to talk about, and the other meaning does not, the latter must be taken as the true meaning.”
After all, I’ve heard there were some mistakes in the most recent print run…
I’ll happily “admit defeat” when you explain either 1) how you’re not rendering 8.4 absurd with respect to regional reps, or 2) why the general principle of interpretation I quoted from p.570 does not apply here.
You can’t do either, and you know it. And so you shout insults at me.
