True, although in this case Tim Just said earlier in this thread that it would probably be good to have alternate scoring systems as rules in the rulebook.
No, he didn’t. Read what he wrote. He said how it would be handled if it were included; not that he thought it was a good idea.
So you admit you were wrong??
No, the quote clearly shows that Tim said earlier in this thread that it would probably be good to have alternate scoring systems as rules in the rulebook.
You have a very odd idea of what “clearly” means.
Tim Just wrote: “The rulebook mentions alternate pairing systems in individual rules. Alternate scoring systems should probably get the same treatment.”
How is it not clear from that statement that Tim was saying it would probably be good to have alternate scoring systems as rules in the rulebook?
I believe (and Tim can correct me if I’m wrong) that it should be interpreted as:
“Alternative scoring systems would have to be a rule, not a TD Tip. If you want to put it to the Rules Committee, have at it”.
That is a possible interpretation that I hadn’t considered.
If that is what Tim meant, what’s wrong with having it as a TD Tip instead of a rule? I wouldn’t have any problem if it was included in a rule but I don’t think it’s necesaary. I don’t think all variations need to be mentioned in the rules themselves.
Covered in 1B1. Notification and/or 1B2. Major variations.
That could be an answer as to why it wouldn’t need to be mentioned in the rulebook at all, not why it should be a rule instead of a TD Tip.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
+1
Yep.
There is one possible good reason to have the TD tips included along with the rules. Rules in and of themselves are not protected by copyright, TD tips on the other hand would be.
And this is a reason to include TD tips along with the rules because…
Not as much now that they actually post the most of the rule book online now. But it makes it more difficult to make legal copies that aren’t controlled by US Chess.
Someone could still trim out the TD tips and other editorial matter and create their own legal version of just the rules. They could even add a version of their own TD tips in such a creation if they wanted to.
Wouldn’t that be a mess in the making?
No, it wouldn’t. I have on my bookshelf “The Chess Organiser’s (sic, it’s English) Handbook, incorporating the FIDE Official Laws of Chess” by Stewart Reuben, which has sections on how to choose prize funds, format, venue, time control, … He isn’t afraid to editorialize (“Children usually provide no problems. But their parents can be appalling.”) so is providing one (very experienced) IA’s perspective on how to do things, but, for instance, on different formats or pairing systems, is willing to list some that he, personally, would never choose (and explains why).
One problem with “TD Tips” is they are often too legalistic (because they are intermixed with actual rules). They may have a “yes, you can do this”; the “but maybe you shouldn’t” isn’t included.
Exception to prove the rule. 
What if some, let’s be polite, less knowledgeable person gives their TD tips?
The book in question is (c) 1997 and is small-format hard-bound so had to go through a publishing house that was willing to sink some money into it. Now, of course, anybody can put out an e-book claiming to be an expert—one hopes that the consumers will have the sense to recognize whether the author actually is. An actual book, even an e-book, is a lot of work (an hour a page for original content is pretty much the minimum to expect). Someone who really wants to spread bad ideas (even if they think they are good ones) is much better off using blogs, tweets and forum posts.