Quote:
Originally posted by Shortfuse
Well I got the heads up about the thread after that and I responded about the reason about the first (INITIAL) article in the Hilltop.
But I will indulge you on the second letter. That letter was written after the response to the first letter from someone within APO. Plain and simple. Once again APO took the first letter as an offense when your org was NEVER MENTIONED IN IT. The second letter was the brother's defense for a chapter member. Do I condone it? NO I don't because I don't believe in writing back and forth over a dead issue. A issue which is dead becasue APO was never mentioned in the first article. I would've laugh it off and kept it moving. But that's just me personally.
So can we all be in agreement that APO wasn't being dissed (having it's legitimacy challenged) in the first article (maybe the second one but I didn't see it) adn say that this thing got started over nothing?
|
ACTUALLY.....
The member of APO responded to the article as an INDIVIDUAL, not as a REPRESENTATIVE of APO...the hilltop just choose to let everyone know what org. she was a member of. Therefore, APO did not take it PERSONALLY until the next sigma decided that ONE PERSON spoke for our entire organization!!!!!