[Ansteorra] Transparency. was CLOSED MEETINGS

[bsmall at suddenlink.net]

---- David Whitford <dbw6969 at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> You suggest have a Sgt at Arms to inforce a quiet rule
> and/or remove disruptive elements, yet by the very
> reasoning you feel you should be allowed into the
> meeting then sgt at arms has no right to remove you.

There's nothing wrong with that logic.  In the real world, there are public trials, are you suggesting that the judge shoudn't have the right to have the bailiff remove disruptive elements?  It happens all the time and no one seems to have a problem with that.  Why should this be different?

Ansgar