NPC - # of chapters in 1925
 

I've always wondered when Chi Omega became the largest NPC group in terms of number of active chapters. Founded in 1895, Chi Omega was certainly not the oldest women's fraternity, but by 1925, we had the largest number of collegiate chapters.

http://i829.photobucket.com/albums/z...mbers1925a.jpg

http://i829.photobucket.com/albums/z...mbers1925b.jpg

As with anything in life, quantity doesn't equate to better.

While this is true, OP didn't mention/say/imply that anywhere in this post (regardless of whether the OP actually thinks it) and there's nothing wrong with posting some history in your GLO-specific forum.

You must be new around here.

You got that right. :)

Well it takes about two seconds to realize the OP thinks chi o is the greatest thing to happen to the world for a variety of reasons, which is why I said "regardless of what the OP actually thinks," but coming onto the chi o group to call her out about it just seems unnecessary. In the other threads where she's said things to this extent and people have called her out? Sure, fine. But everyone has "brag about your GLO"/"one of us did something awesome"/"chapter whatever won 18384 awards" type threads in their GLO-specific threads and no one cares, how is this different?

#1 The post shows up on the front page and many people, particularly new members, don't look at what forum it's posted in.

#2 You are drawing conclusions only from historic posts that still exist. There's lots of nasty deleted history from the OP.

#3 You don't know I'm not a Chi Omega.

1. So? A PNM reads that chi o was the biggest in 1925, and is biggest today. PNM might think "oh, that's cool" and move on. If the PNM thinks "I want to join that group because they're the biggest!" is that really the kind of mindless follower any of us want in our GLOs, regardless of size? Replying to it only keeps it on the front page longer.

2. I lurked forever and spent an embarrassing amount of time on here before I signed up, so I've seen some of what the OP's said. Even if that's the moderated version, coming on here unprovoked seems silly.

3. This is true, I never said that you weren't.

It is definitely implied.

There is also nothing wrong with replying to a post with your personal opinion. That's rather the modus operandi of the whole site. So you can stop worrying about playing posting police and telling posters that their posts are "unnecessary". Oxygen is necessary. Posting rarely is.

If we have to talk numbers, my hat is off to Alpha Phi--one of the smallest then and one of the largest now.

So I'm a history nerd... sue me! :p

I think historic documents are of interest -- to Chi Omegas as well as others. I think sorority expansion in those days was truly remarkable. Communication and travel was difficult and they accomplished so much.

"Lots," really? "Nasty," really? That is absolutely not true.

Must be awfully crowded in that bubble of denial you inhabit.

I'm hardly playing posting police, I'm "new here" and know better. I was just replying to a post with my personal opinion :) as it says in the doc posted, "few of us would actually concede any lack of strength because of numbers". I guess I just feel like one of my favorite things about reading here is that when people get called out, it's for a good reason and it's just awesome to read, so calling out some crazy person implying things in her little corner of the Internet just doesn't fit that in my head. Note that I'm not saying "wow you're a bitch, why would you say that?" or "leave her alone she's a nice lady," I was just sharing my personal feelings, which absolutely apply to no one but myself. Does that mean my post was unnecessary? Probs. Oh well, sadly for everyone else I have an email address and internet connection so here I am!

Irony. So much irony.