Word, word, wordy mc wordlestein word.


Also, there seems to be a fairly large divide between GCers who have been here for a while and newer members. All we can say to the newbies is, believe us when we say how bad some of the AI threads got and that the response of completely banning AI discussion is NOT unwarranted.

It's kind of like how jon1856 (not to pick on you, dude) thought KABillyMac was trying to stir up things when he sarcastically said we should all call each other names or something. Those of us who have been here for a long time KNOW KABM's heart is pure (tee hee) and he wasn't trying to do any such thing - he was just being goofy. Jon doesn't know KABM from a hole in the ground cause he's fairly new, so he didn't know any better.

If you don't believe me, search on all the posts of some of the people who have voted "con" for the AI forum - and see what their opinions and posts were like 3 years ago.

You have a valid point, and it's a good question. The fact of the matter is, some GCers understand their sorority's policy on AI, and are conning the forum for reasons that they can't or may not be willing to discuss, due to the sensitive nature of sorority policy. For instance, I've been researching my own org's policies on AI -- having been totally clueless about AI before joining GC -- and I would probably have f-ing kittens if I saw someone trying to "shop" my sorority due to my understanding of how it works in AXO. It is my opinion that I shouldn't publicize AXO AI any more than nationals does (i.e. NOT AT ALL) and I believe National's silence on the issue should be respected, but we all know that this is an internet chat board and nobody has to respect my wishes in the relative anonymity of cyberspace. When it comes down to it, I can type until I'm blue in the face and it may not change anything.

Other GCers may not be conning this forum because of their National's AI policies. So to address your question, not all GCers are preaching their sorority's policy. Some may be conning it even though their Nationals is relatively open to meeting PNAMs from any situation. These women may feel that sorority shopping in AI undermines the integrity of their organization. As current members of their org, they have every right to express this opinion. I also think it's a valid argument against the existence of this forum -- after all, if GC members don't like it and are speaking out against it, then maybe John will decide it's a good idea to take it down.

But again, this is an internet chat board, and the longer this debate rages on, the less likely it seems that this forum is going anywhere. At the end of the day, all of this may be a moot point. :(

I agree with your whole post, but this I would pay $$ to see.:) :) ;)

LOL! Past PNAMs have dropped some "hints" about possibly researching my org, and if this happens again, you may get the whole show for free.

Could I please have some clarification of the term "shopping?" I'm not sure what is meant in this context.

Does it mean people who try one sorority, are told "no", then go to the next, are told "no", etc.

Or.. does it mean people who research different sororities at the same time?

Or does it mean people who contact multiple sororities at the same time?

(edited for spelling error)

The last is what most mean by sorority shopping. IMHO, all of them are shopping. There should be no "PNAIs"-- just amazing women who are approached about membership.

I disagree that research=shopping.

Why does this remind me of Bill Clinton asking about what actually qualifies as "sex"?

Or what the definition of "is" is.

Shopping
 

This is what I consider "shopping"--the "Final Encore" post.

I consider it shopping when a PNAM is meeting with multiple groups at a time. Contacting can be shopping if the PNAM is contacting in hopes of meeting with multiple groups and not just asking for information, but for introductions.

This bothers me because the groups in question likely have no idea that the PNAM is meeting more than one.

I think it's important that we agree on a definition before we discuss it further, or at least clarify it individually so that everyone knows what each other disagrees or disapproves of as it relates to this topic. I don't think everyone's difinition is the same.

Thus, since everyone's definition is NOT the same, we're not going to be able to agree on one.

Duh.

LOL! Did anyone say there had to be a discussion on "sorority shopping"...again?

(People are just trying to keep this topic going when, in actuality, all of the bases have really been covered.)

I think everyone agreeing on a defintion of "sorority shopping" is about as likely as getting everyone to agree on IF there should be an AI forum, and IF there is WHAT should and should not be allowed.

In other words...forget it.