[15570] in APO-L
Re: 2 questions for those at all-male chapter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Grossi)
Wed Nov 13 16:37:15 1996
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 16:27:58 EST
Reply-To: John Grossi <jgrossi@MU.BBN.COM>
From: John Grossi <jgrossi@MU.BBN.COM>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961113145311.26258A-100000@tavarua>; from "Lee
Correll" at Nov 13, 96 2:59 pm
> I concur. However, a look at the list of people on APO-L shows that it
> would be difficult to determine if this was a real cross-section of the
> Fraternity as a whole. This is the best medium we have available to
> discuss items before the Convention itself.
This is the best medium for people to practice there arguements. It is
not a cross section of the fraternity, not by a long shot... the gross
majority of the people out there are not into that computer thing
(Baecker, Reading in Human Computer Interaction, p 132-133 -- so no
one screams)
>
> > I would also note that most of the people speaking on this
> > issue are alumni of either the staff stripe (myself, Lee, Bill Rugh,
> > etc...) or Alumni who are still active (Jodie, Bill Macke...). We
> > really have not heard the Undergraduates discussion, and nor do I
> > suspect we will until Phoenix.
>
> It began that way - but has been shifting. I note several posts both pro
> and con from Michigan State, Georgia Tech, Auburn, Drexel, etc.
Which is a good thing... personally I feel that I've been way too
vocal on this subject, and I know that's why you've held back as long
as you have on saying something.
>
> > I would also note that a large portion of the people fighting
> > for the affirmative are from (or associated with) Alpha Beta Omega
> > Chapter (yourself, Lee, Derek Cashman, Mike Leahy, emy).
>
> This is a generalization and in no way correct. I'll let the other
> individuals on this list make themselves known, but if you check previous
> posts, you'll even note that Larry Labell, the former Section Chair from
> your area before it split, commented on this - and, I believe, "applauded"
> my staff on the motions.
Your opinion versus mine... neither's right, neither's wrong it's all
preception... *shrug*
> nor should you be impressed with what they have been; the fact that they
> were there is moot beyond their ability to inform you of what has taken
> place. I'd like to note that we aren't "fighting" - at least, I would
Oh agreed, which is what I was trying to get across, we are all alumni,
it's not our decision... it's yours the Undergraduates... we work for you...
not you for us.
> hope not. If we wanted a fight, we would have only proposed a single
A good discussion is not fighting... I'm not fighting but I suspect
some of the people who've been posting are taking this way too personally...
> motion; remember, the idea is to discuss.
and reach a conclusion...
-John
