What I mean by saying that I do not fault the GC organizers is that they could not have foreseen the way things would pan out, especially in terms of the all too numerous points of order. Michael Ryan did an excellent and very even-handed job as chairperson.
Perhaps the chairman could have encouraged real debate by allowing for delegates to graciously refute the assertions of other delegates. The debate should have been a battle of ideas, and the best ideas should win. This can only happen when delegates are going on the offensive as well as the defensive.
There are many innovations that may have been employed on Wednesday 8 July to improve the standard of the debate. Here are some suggestions for your consideration:
Points of order could initially have been relayed to the chairperson and parliamentarian electronically and vetted before becoming public.
Delegates who wished to speak to the motion could have registered to do so beforehand, thus providing oppotunity for the chairman to ensure that there was sufficient time for everyone to speak.
Delegates, and particularly those for whom English is not their first language, could have been given the option of having their points displayed electonically. This may have required the submission of these points 24 hours before debate started. Points displayed electronically need not necessarily be repeated in the verbal debate.
The round robin between those FOR the motion and those AGAINST the motion needs to have been expanded so that an equal number of WOMEN and MEN had opportunity to put their points forward, And ditto for the various divisions so that all would have equal opportunity to make presensentations.
Voting may still have been electronic with a cabled system, instead of a wireless one, with devices at the end of each row that were cabling responses to the screen.
ALL of the above suggestions are made with the benefit of hindsight!
Better things like “The Great Controversy?” I got my copy today. Another book patients can read in the waiting room before their “therapy hour.” It might/could exacerbate panic attacks but I can settle them down once in my couch. Good business George. Should you need s copy, I’ll send you mine.
Peter, you seem to have missed the fact that none of these item were wanted by the “organizers” of the event. Ryan followed orders. Whether he personally was in agreement with the blockage of fair discussion in the various ways you have described. there is no way of knowing. What one can clearly see from the way he handled the events… especially those having to do with the “point of order” comments… is that he was thorough and consistent in using them in classic “filibustering” ways. I appreciate your efforts to be positive and helpful… but there are times when it is well to be realistic… even when… or perhaps especially when… actual events call for negativity.
If I am correct, it was Elder Miranda, a fellow VP and sometime Chairperson of the Session who pleaded with him to extend the time. Presumably Miranda thought this within the realm of possibility. From where I was viewing the proceedings, through the night Australian time, Mike was bending over backwards to accommodate everyone’s points of order and thus to be fair. At least, this is how I saw it. He certainly dealt with all points of order in a timely manner given the fact that he wasn’t using any electronic assistance, such as I have suggested. If anyone were fillibustering, it was the delegates themselves, yet that is by no means certain.
The process and outcome had so much riding on it, and everyone was on tenderhooks.This alone is probably sufficient to explain the number of points of order.
It seemed to me that Mike was given this ‘poisoned chalice’ so to speak, chiefly because he was a very experienced operator who was retiring.
My suggestions are just that - my personally suggestions. Mike cannot be faulted for the fact West Africa had 3 people speak agin the motion, East Africa had only 1 or that several Divisions had no one speaking for them. Neither is he responsible for the fact that there were few women delegates who spoke. Nor can he be faulted for not employing the electronic systems I have suggested.
Hey Elmer, i can give a copy to each patient and recommend to read it at night. If it triggers a panic attack they can call me at any time after 21:00… (I charge more for calls after that time…)
No, definitely not a round about way of saying there is no God. I’m saying God is much bigger than all the MAN MADE religions which exist now.
Explain how God “made” all the religions when some have completely different beliefs–sometimes completely opposite, i.e., SDAs believe Saturday is the day of worship and most other religions worship on Sunday. SDAs believe when we die, we stay remain where placed until Jesus comes and many other religions believe otherwise.
Thank you Peter, for your response. I am happy for you to interpret what happened in the most positive way possible. From what I saw and heard… either live on the Hopetv broadcast, the Spectrum system, or from comments that various reporters and observers made… I cannot come to the same conclusions as you do.
Specifically on the “point-of-order” handling by Mike and the assistant at his side. Yes, it was delegates at the mikes who asked a “point-of-order” question. But it was Mike himself who initiated some of the longest “filibustering” excursions … by asking his partner to read sections from the policy book… at times very lengthy sections.
Many of your suggestions are very good… and could have facilitated a fair and equitable use of the time available. Unfortunately, I think it is obvious to most that the one(s) in control wanted what they wanted… and that was precisely the outcome and method to make sure it was attained that was employed.
We may continue to have different views of this… that is quite alright. You are as much entitled to yours as I am to mine.
I think it is sad you used Harper Lee’s failed drafted manuscript to write your article.
It is terrible that people are purchasing the unauthorized published book in which her Lawyer profits.
Harper Lee is a very private, now ailing, literary icon who has been taken advantage of in a most cruel way.
What has become a gold mine for the publisher is a very sad, very wrong, abuse of a truly gifted author.
[quote=“elmer_cupino, post:66, topic:9021”]
Better things like “The Great Controversy?” I got my copy today. Another book patients can read in the waiting room before their “therapy hour.” It might/could exacerbate panic attacks but I can settle them down once in my couch. Good business George. Should you need s copy, I’ll send you mine.
[/quote]Elmer…are you serious? Are you really putting this in your waiting room?
I’m kidding. There, I said it. There is no way any religious or, as a matter of fact, any other books available in my waiting room. Just outdated magazines.
Which religion as we know them now, is the “original true religion?” The ones who worship of Saturday or the ones who worship on Sunday? The ones who believe Jesus came to this earth and died for our sins, or the ones that believe the Messiah has not come to this earth?
