Stop the "Baby" Talk

[agzg]

Originally Posted by DGTess

I've made an assumption. When NPC adopts its unanimous agreements, each member organization pledges that each member will "abide by and honor the UAs."

Since that's one I'm not willing to honor, I'm presuming I would not be welcome as an advisor or officer at anything above the chapter level. I seriously doubt DG would revoke my membership because of it, but I respect that DG has signed up to something I cannot support.

I'm sorry, this is the most dramatic wailing over a terminology change I've ever seen in my entire life.

You "cannot support" it? Really? You "cannot support" referring to new members as... new members? Like, this is the most offensive thing ever to you? Because you're certainly posting like it is.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by agzg

I'm sorry, this is the most dramatic wailing over a terminology change I've ever seen in my entire life.

You "cannot support" it? Really? You "cannot support" referring to new members as... new members? Like, this is the most offensive thing ever to you? Because you're certainly posting like it is.

Please take a chill pill. Part of this discussion broke off into the "new member" and "baby" and "pledge" and "rushee" discussion.

I do not and will not support the change to "recruitment" and "new member" -- I won't use the terms in place of those I believe to be more accurate. Someone asked what would happen if one used the old terminology, and I stated that I was surmising, and implied I could be wrong. If you disagree with me, that's one thing, but it is your opinion, and opinion only, and it differs from mine. No need to get nasty.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Please take a chill pill. Part of this discussion broke off into the "new member" and "baby" and "pledge" and "rushee" discussion.

I do not and will not support the change to "recruitment" and "new member" -- I won't use the terms in place of those I believe to be more accurate. Someone asked what would happen if one used the old terminology, and I stated that I was surmising, and implied I could be wrong. If you disagree with me, that's one thing, but it is your opinion, and opinion only, and it differs from mine. No need to get nasty.

Oh yes, please, take a stand over something as innocuous as a terminology change from rush to recruitment and pledge to new member. You're so brave to stand against it in the face of something that threatens everything you hold dear!

I tell you what, those jerks who wanted to make this change are nothing but commies! Socialism! Obamacare!

[adpiucf]

Originally Posted by agzg

Oh yes, please, take a stand over something as innocuous as a terminology change from rush to recruitment and pledge to new member. You're so brave to stand against it in the face of something that threatens everything you hold dear!

I tell you what, those jerks who wanted to make this change are nothing but commies! Socialism! Obamacare!

Believe it or not, this did cause major drama at a collegiate-alumnae event. An alumna who had been in charge of an open house event just before recruitment continued to refer to it as the Rush Open House, and would not change the marketing materials. There were actual tears, and accusations about socalism and communism. I believe Vietnam was invoked. It was dramatic and ridiculous.