Your thoughts on AI: discussion goes here. - Page 46

ReachTheLimit · #**676** 10-16-2006, 02:15 PM

I went back about a year, and I never, ever thought it was a quick process. I figured that out probably within an hour of reading through.

When I started this process, I didn't have a personal timeline because it is a different process. I'm going to let nature take it's course, I have been invited to upcoming chapter activities, and a day will come when they are ready to have me or tell me I'm not a match.

That's ok. I have to get a chance to know them too, and who knows? I may decide, that we are not a match. But having a GOOD match, is very important to me.

ReachTheLimit · #**677** 10-16-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariesrising

Oh, I've had some PMs from PNAMs asking if it was true that certain sororities were easier to AI into because they had more AI members here on GC.

And that is an inappropriate question, I agree with you 100%, and they just need to be told that information isn't given on GC.

I'll back you up any day of the week on that one.

kddani · #**678** 10-16-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueangel

These types of posts are relatively rare in the grand scheme of things. As I pointed out before.. it's not as if the floodgates have opened. There are just a handful or so of people who have posted that they are seeking AI on this forum.

They why is it that several NPC sororities have taken public information about AI down from their websites, and several have totally revamped/are in the process of revamping their AI policies? Several (Inter)National Officers from various groups have stated that a large part of the reason for both of those was the artificial market that GC was creating.

blueangel · #**679** 10-16-2006, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kddani

They why is it that several NPC sororities have taken public information about AI down from their websites, and several have totally revamped/are in the process of revamping their AI policies? Several (Inter)National Officers from various groups have stated that a large part of the reason for both of those was the artificial market that GC was creating.

I don't know that to be fact. This sounds like here-say. Are there any speeches on the internet from these International Officers where I can read this?

If AI is ritual.. how would you know that about other groups?

AlphaFrog · #**680** 10-16-2006, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReachTheLimit

One would think that a list posted in a sticky by the moderator would be accurate.

That "MOD" was Tom Earp.

_Lisa_ · #**681** 10-16-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kddani

They why is it that several NPC sororities have taken public information about AI down from their websites,

And anyone that wanted proof can go to the 26 NPC sorority web sites & see which ones freely offer information on AI on their site.

Said person can start here if they felt so inclined.

33girl · #**682** 10-16-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adelphean

GC will just have to welcome questions about/regarding AI on other forums, possibly a forum where you are not a moderator.

GC doesn't "just have to" welcome questions on ANYTHING.

AFAIK, John has never disciplined or questioned the NPHC members for the very tight moderation of their forums regarding membership questions. He's never said "hey, you really should let SusieSigmaToBe ask exactly what GPA she needs to get into SGRho." Why NPC members shouldn't be afforded the same consideration, I don't understand at all.

Drolefille · #**683** 10-16-2006, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

That "MOD" was Tom Earp.

That smiley makes me giggle.

I thought navane's list was nice, but was easily abused by the "which is the easiest" people.

ReachTheLimit · #**684** 10-16-2006, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

That "MOD" was Tom Earp.

Well, obviously no one corrected it if it was wrong and in the very short time that I have been on this board, Penguin and Carnation have been the moderators, and the list was just deleted a few days ago. So, the opportunity was clearly there to change it.

That's why I think it was accurate.

epchick · #**685** 10-16-2006, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueangel

I don't know that to be fact. This sounds like here-say. Are there any speeches on the internet from these International Officers where I can read this?

Do you get all your source material from the internet? I'm sorry, but its time to learn that there are other ways of getting information than from the internet!

tunatartare · #**686** 10-16-2006, 02:29 PM

Navane's list was very similar to Tom's, except with better spelling and grammar and fewer one-word replies.

Drolefille · #**687** 10-16-2006, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KLPDaisy

Navane's list was very similar to Tom's, except with better spelling and grammar and fewer one-word replies.

Yes I know. Tom's list was pointless and politically motivated. Navane's was not. While it's nice for informational purposes I agree it's too easily abused.

ReachTheLimit · #**688** 10-16-2006, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueangel

I don't know that to be fact. This sounds like here-say. Are there any speeches on the internet from these International Officers where I can read this?

If AI is ritual.. how would you know that about other groups?

BINGO!

ReachTheLimit · #**689** 10-16-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

That smiley makes me giggle.

I thought navane's list was nice, but was easily abused by the "which is the easiest" people.

I never saw any posts that would suggest that.

Drolefille · #**690** 10-16-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReachTheLimit

I never saw any posts that would suggest that.

Your lack of knowledge on the matter does not mean it didn't happen.