Let me make my point of order. You cut me off. You didn't even let me finish it. Now, let me finish my point of order.
My point of order, sir, is that you cannot know, without hearing the member's point of order, whether or not it is relevant to the testimony being given. You cannot know that. If you refuse to hear the point of order, how can you know whether or not it is directly relevant to the testimony being given?
My other point is that the witness can continue with his testimony after you've heard the point of order. Everything is recorded. It's all transcribed. It's all here. It's not as if he was prevented from giving his answer.
You have no excuse for deferring a point of order. If it's relevant at that point in time, you wouldn't know that unless you accepted the point of order. So you should not be deferring it. You should be listening to the point of order. If you rule it out of order, fine. But you must hear the point of order to be able to render your judgment, unless you can read minds.