States that don't have chapters

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by dnall

I'm going to end this conversation, because anything I could have to say beyond this point would not be nice. Please do not speak to me again.

And yet . . .

Originally Posted by dnall

Cliff notes? Sure, I'll do that myself.

I said I was done, too, but since you didn't end the conversation when you said you would (twice now), why should anyone else?

It's clear that you don't get it. The more accurate real life version would be this.

1. You made statements under the (not unreasonable for someone new here) assumption that the conversation in this thread was a more or less private conversation among ATOs.
   
2. Non-ATOs responded to your statements with requests that you speak only for your org.
   
3. You responded with surprise, because you (again, not unreasonably for somone new here) assumed it would be clear from the context (i.e., that this is the ATO forum) that you were speaking for your org only.
   
4. Others explained that your assumption does not accurately reflect the way conversations typically happen at GC.
   
5. You, while offering an apology that could be reasonably be read as a non-apology, proceeded to explain how that's a stupid way to do things and you don't buy into it. Things should work the way you think they should work.
   
6. Others responded either by (1) trying to say stupid or not, it's current reality and it is the explanation of why your initial statements drew responses that surprised and confused you, and/or by (2) telling you to get over yourself. Meanwhile, no one challenged you on the position you state for your fraternity.
   
7. You, rather than just letting it go or saying something along the lines of "well, that seems like a dumb and counterintuitive way for things to work, but at least it explains why I got the responses I did," instead pounded away on how it's wrong, and even brought in a fun hazing example.
   
8. Hilarity ensued.

Originally Posted by dnall

Quit trying to run people off just because they don't want to play by what you want the rules to be.

And here's the point you're totally missing: It's not about playing by the rules. Good or bad, right or wrong way to do things, It just is. It's the explanation for why you got the initial responses you did -- nothing more, nothing less.

And no one is trying to drive you off. Quite a few people have commented favorably on what you've had to say in posts elsewhere. But there's an almost universal reality that lectures from the new guy on how everyone else is doing things all wrong rarely win people over.