Wherein The True Glory of Parliamentary Procedure is Revealed

From a vintage Time article detailing the 1975 fight to move the filibuster down from 67 votes to just 60 (H/T Yglesias - seriously, Helen, Molly, and Dara, you need to start writing things soon so I seem more original here)

Although he lost under the sheer weight of his opponents' voting power, Alabama's Democratic Senator James Allen, 62, played the most adroit role in the three weeks of parliamentary maneuvering. Tall and paunchy, his langorous drawl camouflaging his Mach 4 mind, Allen used every trick, rule, ruse and gambit in the book to bedazzle his foes. At one point it seemed as if Allen had the Senate voting on the following snarled procedure: a motion to table a motion to reconsider a vote to table an appeal of a ruling that a point of order was not in order against a motion to table another point of order against a motion to bring to a vote the motion to call up the resolution that would institute the rules change.

That is, by my count, eleven stacked resolutions. And at least two of them, I'm pretty sure, aren't acceptable under the latest Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), thus further proving that Jefferson's Manual is a truly, truly bizarre document.*

*Among other things, it lacks any motion to take a motion off the table, thus requiring a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules merely to consider a previously-tabled question, meaning that any tabling motion is essentially a motion objecting to the consideration of the question.