[Lnc-business] Comments regarding draft minutes

Sun Dec 31 17:45:27 EST 2017

I'm with you on starting sentences. Intellectually, I agree on infinitives,
but I can't make myself really believe it.
On Dec 31, 2017 4:22 PM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:

> On the Oxford we agree.  On the other, I take a perverse joy out of
> wantonly splitting them and in starting sentences with "but" and "and."
>
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I advocate the splitting of infinitives when (and only when) it is
>> necessary, as Orwell put it, to prevent saying anything barbarous.  On
>> Oxford commas, though, I see no good argument for ever omitting them
>> (unless you are a cannibal and do, in fact, enjoy eating Grandma).
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> PS:  if split infinitives terribly bother Dr. Lark (like the lack of an
>>> Oxford comma does me), for stylistic purposes, I have no issue changing
>>> that.  However, I note, that it is perfectly acceptable to split
>>> infinitives, and I do so with reckless abandon.
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Starchild, I was under the impression you had just arrived in New
>>>> Orleans.  Can you please let me know if you were there on Friday?
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Lark, yes, on that number Mr. Hagan and I had an off-list
>>>> discussion to be sure the numbers were right as I did not have that in my
>>>> notes either and when I ran the numbers they did not add up.
>>>>
>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:00 PM, James Lark <james.lark at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear colleagues:
>>>>>
>>>>>     I hope all is well with you.  Thanks to Mr. Hagan for his message
>>>>> regarding the draft minutes; I greatly appreciate his taking the time and
>>>>> trouble to dig through my long list of comments and suggestions.
>>>>>
>>>>>     I do not recall a discussion during the meeting of changing the
>>>>> bequests receivable number from $66,800 to $67,800.  In reviewing my
>>>>> recording and notes, it is possible I was out of the room when Mr. Sarwark
>>>>> made a comment regarding the amount.  (As they say in Hollywood, "Timing is
>>>>> everything.")  Specifically, roughly 25 minutes after the beginning of the
>>>>> 2018 budget discussion, Mr. Sarwark indicated that the $66,800 bequests
>>>>> receivable figure may be too low.  There was a very brief discussion among
>>>>> Mr. Hagan, Mr. Sarwark, and Mr. Kraus, from which the $67,800 figure
>>>>> emerged.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Thus, allow me to propose a modification of the draft minutes. On
>>>>> p. 11, the text under the heading Adoption of 2018 Budget currently reads
>>>>> as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral
>>>>> overview, and fielded questions.  He noted the previously discussed
>>>>> increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess
>>>>> Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs.
>>>>> As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to briefly comment,
>>>>> request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer
>>>>> amendment(s).
>>>>>
>>>>>     I suggest the draft minutes be amended so that the text reads as
>>>>> follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> Adoption of 2018 Budget
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral
>>>>> overview, and fielded questions.  He noted the previously discussed
>>>>> increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess
>>>>> Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and
>>>>> costs.  Mr. Sarwark suggested that the Bequests Receivable number of
>>>>> $66,800 in the draft budget may be too low.  After a brief discussion, the
>>>>> number was changed to $67,800.
>>>>>
>>>>> As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to comment briefly,
>>>>> request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer
>>>>> amendment(s).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that in the third paragraph, I have changed the phrase
>>>>> "... to briefly comment ..." to the phrase "... to comment briefly ...."
>>>>> (I prefer that we not split infinitives.)
>>>>>
>>>>>     As always, thanks for your work for liberty.  As always, thanks
>>>>> for considering my comments and suggestions.  Best wishes to you for a
>>>>> great 2018.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Take care,
>>>>>     Jim
>>>>>
>>>>>     James W. Lark, III
>>>>>     Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering
>>>>>     Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society
>>>>>     Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics
>>>>>     University of Virginia
>>>>>
>>>>>     Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
>>>>>     University of Virginia
>>>>>
>>>>>     Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/31/2017 12:42 PM, Tim Hagan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Concerning your comments on the budget table on page 15, Draft 5 of
>>>>>> the spreadsheet had a former number for the Bequests Receivable. The FEC
>>>>>> raised the contribution limit to $33,900 per individual, so we can withdraw
>>>>>> $67,800 from the bequests. (See https://transition.fec.gov/pag
>>>>>> es/brochures/contriblimitschart.htm for contribution limits.) I
>>>>>> believe the Bequests Receivable got corrected toward the beginning of the
>>>>>> budget discussion, before the budget was moved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Tim Hagan
>>>>>> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2017-12-30 19:51, James Lark wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear colleagues:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I hope all is well with you.  I have enclosed several comments
>>>>>>> regarding the draft minutes of the December LNC meeting.  I hope you
>>>>>>> find these comments to be helpful.  A goodly number of the comments
>>>>>>> involve substantive issues (e.g., corrections); many of the comments
>>>>>>> involve suggested wording.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20171231/aff1d1f6/attachment-0002.html>