Sorry about this everyone.. the rest of this message seemed to get cut
off. If it seems a little dated, bear with me, I got cut off before I
could send it initially...
Folks.
Like the rest of you, I've been wading through all this "Re:AGM" email.
A whole bunch of little stuff has kinda annoyed me. Let me say from the
outset - I am barracking for Chi, here. The things I've writen here are
not directed personally at those who wrote them, but at the arguements
they have raised.
Firstly, there is a constant reference to the attempted takeover at the
first AGM - suggestions that it was undemocratic. To this, I say that it
would have been perfectly democratic. Would have been - the fact that the
current executive REFUSED MEMBERSHIP even when their initial e-mail said
that membership would be available there (I still have the e-mail if
anyone disagrees). This sounds a little like a tyrant's democracy - you
can vote, as long as it's for me.
Next. Another constant point of the current exec and their supporters,
this one from Cam:
"The only reason that progsoc is connected to the internet is because of
the cooperation/consultation of the progsoc executive and admins (past &
present) with the people from ITD and SOCS"
I have it on _VERY_ high authority that the current executive are "skating
on thin ice" with SoCS. The idea that somehow a change in the executive
will cause SoCS to remove ftoomsh from the internet is laughable at best.
Now a few from Sammy. (like I said - I'm not attacking you
personally, Sammy.. Just shredding your arguements as you so smugly
claimed to do to James')
"My interests lie with keeping the services Progsoc provides available to
the students at UTS... If that makes me "progsoc people" then so be it."
later in the same message.
'Once again I'm not "progsoc people"'.
Sammy: make up your mind! This kind of thing does HORRORS for your
credibility.
"Vision and purpose are useful only when not built on fairytales and
unrealistic, unachievable ideals."
Who says? - what makes you think that everything Chi has said
is not possible? The fact that they haven't been done before? There's a
very old saying that springs to mind here: there's a first time for
everything. Flight was once dismissed as fairytale, too. Dismissing
something as unachievable is very dangerous, and generally incorrect.
"You encourage new members to come in without consulting the old"
Most of the people who _tried_ to vote at the AGM were past members who
basically had their renewals refused for no given reason.
"What you're trying to do will kill progsoc"
How can getting all the members of progsoc involved in the society
possibly kill it? Seems to me like we've already given it a spark of
life, evidenced by the size of everyones ftoomsh mailbox ;)
If it seems I've come down a bit hard on Sammy, It's only because he's
contributed the most.. there's not enough from everyone else to really get
into.
So here's one from Ryan:
"I think we need to multiply these uncertainties by 6 (the number of
executive positions)"
Hang on - last time I checked there were only 5 positions???? Has someone
added one and forgotten to tell me about it?
Well.. that just about does it. Just to show I'm not TOTALLY biased, I do
actually agree wholeheartedly with something said by Peter Lees:
"Hopefully something positive can come out of all this discussion and we
can go back to our comfortable non-political existance"
Thanks for actually reading down this far... By friday week it should be
behind us all.
Mic
-
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to progsoc-request@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au.