8/30 Regarding the "minute taker is an idiot thread" from yesterday. I
suspect several people would be disappointed if this was buried and
forgotten without corrective action:
\_ Sorry for not commenting about this earlier; I don't normally read
the motd, but someone forwarded it to politburo by mail. The
comment was just a joke, attempting to make fun of the reputation
of the CSUA for being male and insular. I'm sorry if it was taken
the wrong way. I removed the paragraph from the minutes in
/csua/pub/minutes.
In the past, CSUA minutes have often attempted to cover meetings
in a humorous way. This was meant in that context. If I had spent
more time reflecting on how it might be taken, I might not have
written it. --Galen
\_Censorship is alive and well.
\_ Personal responsibility aside, I'm disappointed in the lack of
responsibility in the rest of the Politburo. By their silence they
tacitly support this behaviour on behalf of the CSUA. -geordan
\_ All CSUA members indirectly support this, but the Secretary
needs to be able to figure this out. We can't police everyone
all the time
\_ No, we don't. We're here right now saying this is bad and we
don't support it in any way, shape or form. I not only
oppose it, I believe whoever wrote that garbage should be
thinking up a real nice apology for their next set of
minutes. Fuck up in public = fix it in public and take your
lumps.
\_ I second this motion. I think that there are a lot of
other people who agree (and many who disagree as well).
\_ Anonymous complaints on the motd, especially those about
someone who signs their messages, are ignored. If you have
complaints, complain to the politburo. The motd does not
count for anything. --twohey.
\_ Very poor form, twohey. --scotsman
\_ I happen to agree with geordan here, but complaining on
the motd is _never_ the right way to get your point
across. --twohey
\_ Bullshit. It was wrong. Those with issues are not
the ones who fucked up. We shouldn't have to complain
to the politburo, the motd, or anywhere else. Take
some personal responsibility for your actions. Just
because the source is anonymous and on the motd does
complaints get ignored. Mail poliburo, or
not mean the source is wrong or can be so easily and
dismissed. The politburo should have published an
apology without being told to by anyone.
\_ The motd *is* the wrong place for this. Granted,
the secretary should know better, but since that
does not seem to be the case, whining on the motd
is the exact *wrong* course of action to effect
change. It doesn't exactly give your position
much strength to lapse into excessive profanity
while complaining about propriety...anonymously...
on the motd -- the place where even technical
complaints get ignored. Mail politburo, or
(heaven forbid!) the OSC if you want action. -mice
\_ Perhaps you consider this a bad thing, but the current politburo
doesn't read the motd on a regulat basis (if at all), and thus
were not even aware of this until we recieved mail on the matter.
The motd is not a good way to communicate with the politburo. We
probably will never even see said complaints. - ajani
\_ The motd is the people's voice. Maybe the politburu SHOULD
read the motd (as crappy as it may be)... other than wall,
it's really the only thing that ties the CSUA together.
\_ INcorrect. It is not the voice of the people. Otherwise
it would not have been taken off the web page.
\_ and who made that decision? --Jon
\_ Does that matter? The point is that its for the same
type of reasons the minutes got condemned.
Plus, how many UCB undergrads use motd/wall?
\_ That's not relevant. The motd is not the voice
of UCB students, it's the voice of the CSUA.
\_ It was taken out of context. Anyways, screw you politically-correct
liberal femnazi commies.
\_ Out of context? You're an idiot. And I doubt you're more right
wing or conservative than I am. You look left wing. The right
has this thing about personal responsibility for one's actions,
not blaming them on other folks like you're trying to do.
\_ It's not about left or right politics. It's about general,
simple, social-skills common sense. One would hope that our
elected officers have enough clue to realize that csua is
a larger community than the half-dozen politburo members.
-mice
\_ Gee, getting your panties all into a bundle eh? Can't you
even read? You're the idiot.
\_ respect++
\_ "might not have..."? this is the kinda stuff that should
have punishment of some kind, not just letting you erase
your tracks. the meeting minutes are official records, no?
leave them alone and deal with the consequences, hopefully,
in a future meeting.
\_TrollP?
\_ if you think it was a troll then you're "not getting
it". lots of growing up to do around here....
\_ pot, kettle, black. 'nuff said.
\_ We agree twice. 1.) I have an exteremeley hard
time "getting" hyper-sensitive, whining children who
are so sheltered and spoiled that they can't find
anything better to whine about. 2.) there is
undeniably a lot of growing up to be done here.
\_ Yeah, wouldn't want him to learn anything. What we need
around here is a hangin'.
\_ The fact that you guys still call yourself the politburo says
it all.
\_ yes, this is the only non-stupid comment in this thread.
\_ The politburo shouldn't have to read the motd to know there's inane
and generally 'bad' stuff in csua meeting minutes. Doesn't any of
you actually read the *official* minutes you're putting out? If you
did, why didn't the politburo note and immediately correct the noise
in the minutes? Or even better, not publish garbage like that?
Living down to your own stereotype is hardly humorous.
\_ take a lude.
\_ wow d00d U R s0 kewl! kan i B leik U?!
\_ evidently not.
\_ you don't know what came close to being buried this weekend.
or torched. |
http://csua.com/feed/