Naked frat boys run wild in the street

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by emb021

Excuse me, but some of us had to go thru this sort of ignorant nonsense in another thread.

APO IS a Fraternity. Being about service doesn't change that. Brotherhood is a big part of what we are. Our Founder was a SAE and Mason, and fully understood the concept of Brotherhood.

If he was an SAE and Mason, why would he have essentially created a new brotherhood? Just because your founder was in a social doesn't mean jack. If thats what you use to feel accepted in the greek world, you may want to reconsider things.

Originally Posted by emb021

He (and our other Founders who were also members of socials) most certainly DID understand fraternity rules. Which is why APO was founded NOT as a social, but as a service fraternity.

Any member of a social may join APO, which is what our Founders wanted. They did not want their membership in APO to affect their membership in their socials.

Considering we've been around for awhile, if this was an issue, I think it would have come up a loooong time ago. So you're a little late to bring this non issue up.

Originally Posted by emb021

Ok.

I'm going to assume you were thinking about the rule/policy that if you join one social GLO, you're barred from joining another. (no idea how that would affect one wanting to quit and form a totallly new social).

Please understand that this does NOT apply to joining non-social GLOs, such as service, professional or honorary (nor forming same).

APO is a service GLO. APO is a service Fraternity, not a service club. From day one we have been proud of the fact that we are able to bring together students from all backgrounds, including those in social GLOs. Our early newsletters used to list these groups, and we've always strived to make ourselves the kind of Fraternity that those who are in social GLOs and not can join together in doing service.

It seems here that the word fraternity seemed to be just a formality in which you are using to one-up yourself, and make yourself equivalent to a social fraternity, but the truth you, you aren't equivalent. By your explanations I do not see why anyone in the group would feel the need to be in a social, or vice versa if, in fact, you consider your brotherhood and everything you do to that equivalence of socials.

[jon1856]

^^^Nate;
The later part of this thread (ie the off-topic/high-jack) got me to thinking a bit. I recall my Dad, when I may have been in grammer school telling me that he was in and a member of a Fraternity. A Service Fraternity. I never gave it a second thought, then or now.

And I found the following which should answer many of the questions put forth about this matter. They answered mine.
Service fraternities and sororities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service...and_sororities

Fraternities and Sororities:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...efid=761575922

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by nate2512

If he was an SAE and Mason, why would he have essentially created a new brotherhood? Just because your founder was in a social doesn't mean jack. If thats what you use to feel accepted in the greek world, you may want to reconsider things.

It seems here that the word fraternity seemed to be just a formality in which you are using to one-up yourself, and make yourself equivalent to a social fraternity, but the truth you, you aren't equivalent. By your explanations I do not see why anyone in the group would feel the need to be in a social, or vice versa if, in fact, you consider your brotherhood and everything you do to that equivalence of socials.

Nate, I think you may be misreading what Michael is trying to say. I don't think he's saying that APO is the equivalent of social/general fraternities at all -- indeed, it seems to me that he's saying that from its founding, APO has understood itself to be different from (and, perhaps, complimentary to) general or social fraternities and to have a very different role in collegiate life.

I think his issue has been with the implication that, because it is primarily service-oriented, it has no right to call itself a "fraternity" because that term belongs only to social fraternities (a suggestion that would, I'm sure, come as a surprise to the Freemasons and the Franciscans, both of whom were using the term long before social fraternities came on the scene). I think he is merely trying to say that, even though they are in many ways quite different from a social fraternity, fostering a true brotherhood is nevertheless an essential part of who they are and how they function; thus, they are a fraternity -- i.e., a brotherhood. A service fraternity, not a social fraternity, but still a fraternity.

Michael can, of course, correct me if I'm the one misreading him.

[emb021]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Michael can, of course, correct me if I'm the one misreading him.

Agree with you 100%.