Thank you.
When Dr. Ellis is repeatedly called to order for speaking about the carbon tax when we're talking about the simple grammatical change of preventing the risk of a pandemic versus reducing the risk of it, and you've repeatedly ruled that it is irrelevant and you're upholding the point of order, but he just ignores it and continues to speak as if the ruling had not been made, I find that to be unacceptable and there must be a consequence to this.
Dr. Ellis is permitted to filibuster, as he clearly wants to do, but he still has to respect the rules of relevancy, and that's a bit harder to do. He's not entitled to talk about any subject under the sun no matter how irrelevant it is to the subject at hand.
I'm just saying that, having ignored your ruling at least five times now, there must be a consequence. I'm calling on you, the next time it happens, to recognize the next speaker if Dr. Ellis refuses to respect your continued rulings on relevancy.