More controversy: Union Gowns

[Grandpa]

You are quite right, they are not academic - I was wrong to call them that, let's just call them official. However, my argument is that I find it inappropriate for an essentially young company to rise to the traditions of a very much essentially old historic company, even if it is part of that company - what a load of twaddle. And that, sirs/ma'ams is my OPINION. Biased or not, I'm sure you are not the picture of completely fair thinking now, are you? Have
you your likes for some things others would turn their noses up at? If so, give the rest of us some bloody room would ya?


I don't much care if you don't like my argument. I have listened to all the other arguments put down here and I can tell this will just turn out to be a grandpa-bash again. Oh well. What a shame. Well, I suppose it's just typical of the sinner. No-one can just agree to disagree, that would be asking too much. nope, academic persons' views are tantamount to gospel truth and anyone elses are just muck, misunderstanding or plain wrong.

F*ck me, anyone would have thought this was a website run for right wing activists. Oh, neither of you are members of the conservatives are you?

[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]

[Light the Rag]

People have disagreed with you, and yet you come back for more.

Can you not agree to disagree?

[Al]

Grandpa, with each post you reveal your argument to be growing ever weaker and more desperate. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and no one is saying otherwise. If you had said "I don't like the idea of Association gowns" then no one would have questioned your right to hold that opinion. There are probably many who would agree. There have been many students who hate the tradition of undergraduate gowns. However, you are seeking to justify your opinion with nonsense. The fact remains that the Students' Association has a perfect right to have official gowns for its officials. There is no prescribed age a "company" must reach before it gains that right.

No one has "bashed" you on this thread. We have simply pointed out your errors. If you consider that "bashing" then I am truly sorry that you have such a thin skin.

Lastly, I fail to see how one's political beliefs could possibly have the slightest bearing on the matter at hand. However, for the record, I am not a Conservative. Nor am I a "right wing activist".

[RJ Covino]

Does it not bear pointing out that the Association is the heir to the oldest Students' Union in the country?

[hr]

http://www.ralphcovino.com

[Al]

It probably would be worth pointing out but I am not sure Grandpa is interested in facts.

[David Bean]

Quoting grandpa from 05:08, 26th Jan 2006I have on many occasion on this website actively thanked you and those around you for enlightening me.

Is it possible to thank someone other than actively?

That you negate to acknowledge this is, I would say, probably not down to my ignorance, but rather down to your own shortness of civility in such matters.

Did he acknowledge it and then take it back?

Now, that a university Principal, or other office holder wears such dress dates back... into the echelons of history with a use begun by those echelons privileged by such history to wear them.

Can an echelon wear a gown?

That any essentially corporate body no more than 26 or 27 yrs in age chooses to use such attire I think partially inappropriate. Why so? Because the history of this union does not span back centuries.

If you acknowledge the purpose of the gown is to signify the nature of the office held by the one wearing it, what on earth does how long the organisation in question has existed have to do with it? Should we deny the Mayor of Hartlepool a gown of office on the basis that his position was only created in 2002?

Of course, the kindly commissioned Assessor's gown I would argue does deserve it's own right of existence as it has a direct bearing on the running of the University Court. The same may be said of other office holders that sit at Court.

If your objection is therefore to the length of time that the office has been in existence, why should it matter whether or not their holder sits on Court? If it's your belief that sitting on court somehow confers extra importance on the officebearer, you are quite mistaken. I, for instance, don't sit there, but I do sit on about five subcommittees of Court and Senate, and it is in these subcommittees that the real issues are decided - most of their decisions, being made by people who are likely to know far more about the subject at hand (which is why they're on the subcommittee in the first place), are merely approved by Court (and Senate where applicable) as a formality. So as far as the University administration is concerned, the distinction you draw between officers who sit on Court and those who don't is completely arbitrary. Meanwhile, those who don't sit on any subcommittees at all, particularly the officers of the SSC, might be just as important to student life in the immediate term.

You might see my point (though I doubt it) if I say that any use of gowns with disregard for direct and unambiguous links to an organisations, shall we say, 'ancient' history is unsuitable.

Why?

In this light, I would defend 'new' universities' rights to use gowns, as the tradition has spanned in history amongst other universities.

Are we to understand, then, that one institution may borrow a tradition that applied to other (entirely separate) institutions, but that one part of an institution, having arisen relatively more recently (as did the student union movement), may not borrow the same tradition from its parent - even when the part might be older than most of the new separate institutions whom you're quite happy to allow to do the borrowing? And in that case, since as a part of the university it's a lot newer than the Students' Association, why should the head of the School of Management be allowed to wear a gown of office?

I would not defend any recently-formed business of specifically non-academic/historic significance if it wanted to use them for it's affairs.

Bad luck, Mayor of Hartlepool!

The Students' Assoc. is one of these such businesses, essentially owned/controlled by the university (although I understand this is a grey area and debateable - please, don't bore me with the specifics - it's not important here), it was not formed for a specific academic purpose. It was formed to represent students, but any group of students may represent itself and does not necessarily need an association of students to do so. Some may even say in jest that an association of students just makes things more complicated. Parts of Organisational Theory would say just this, with no jest included.

Are we further to understand, then, that this whole thread is merely an elaborate dig at the Students' Association? Also, its aim isn't just to represent students - its other aim is to serve them, through services and student activities. That's why it's a Students' Association, not an SRC. My job comprises very little representation, but when it does, what I'm representing is students' requirements in terms of activities and services (rather than, say, educational or accommodational requirements).

The Association is not an academic body. It is at best representational and social. The university is an academic body - it primarily teaches, whereas the Association tries to represent, but doesn't really get very far (in my opinion - yes, you will disagree, but lets not go there too).

Again, you appear to have neglected the activities and services side of our operation, and may I remind you that any organisation can only be as good as the people who get involved with it are prepared to make it.

So, all in all, the Association is not a specifically academic or extended historic body, and as such should not use/condone the use of gowns by those amongst its ranks who do not have any direct and official business with the University Court (or other such academic dress-wearing group).

Except that you haven't shown that these two factors have any significance, and you've already been presented with numerous counter-examples, so your premises don't support your conclusions.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[The Unwilling]

Quoting grandpa from 05:11, 27th Jan 2006
However, my argument is that I find it inappropriate for an essentially young company to rise to the traditions of a very much essentially old historic company, even if it is part of that company - what a load of twaddle.

What about a newly created set of chambers? Should newer barristers not be entitled to wear the proper attire until their company is at least 40 years old?

[exnihilo]

I was going to make reply, but the last couple of posts, Grandpa, have been even more unreadable than usual.

[Guest]

[img]http://www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/grandpa.png[/img]

[Grandpa]

Is it possible to thank someone other than actively?

Of course it is. How about doing it through someone else. By the time your thanks reach that other person you are no longer thanking them actively, but rather quite passivley through someone else.

Did he acknowledge it and then take it back?

Ah. my mistake, I meant to say fail. Thank you for pointing this out.
(the above is an ionstance of active thanks, I shall demonstrate 'passive thanking' (oooh do you see the pun???) when it becomes appropriate to.

Can an echelon wear a gown?

I think you'll find the correct grammatical form would be "Can echelons wear gowns?" [s]really, one would have thought that with your degree and all, you would have spotted that?[/s]

As to the rest of your verbal diarrhoea, I shall say that you are misinterpretting me completely:

Now, I understand that it is your and others' prerogative agenda to find me wrong, stand up for your belovedly young institution (which I think a good one - but young nonetheless). With this in mind, do try to not be so pedantic and long winded about everything.

When I talk about gown-wearing in "the echelons of history with a use begun by those echelons privileged by such history to wear them" what I am talking about is that an institution must belong to an ancient or at least very old genre of institution such that, if it wishes to wear such gowns, it should necessarily have been in 'ancient' or 'old' history that the tradition of wearing such gowns began.

Furthermore, what I have failed to include up until now, is that it is a norm of these gown wearing 'officials' (for want of a better word) that they usually perform (with some exceptions, such as exclusive clubs; also other organisations like Freemasons), in their official capacity, some activity of national importance. Such activities include being a Doctor/Professor/Principle/Graduate at a university - this would entail performing teaching, and/or rersearch, and probably quite a bit more for a university, itself of national importance. Now then, a university cannot wear its own clothes. Or rather it can, and does, in the form of its coat of arms (many refer to this, incorrectly, as a crest), and those that work in official capacity for/in it may wear their own ceremonial/official clothing. Barristers, too, are of institutions that hold possibly one of the most important national services. Barristers also have their official/ceremonial clothing. Policemen, members of the universities, of civic councils, members of the British Army, Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, and many others all have their ceremonial clothing and all conduct/perform, or should we say GIVE a service to our nation.

What gets me is that the Students' Association is not one of these types of organisation. Nor is it one of the exceptions (such as Freemasons, or the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews - it has been providing a service to golf, (the USA and Mexico excluded), since 1754. It might be termed an exclusive club, although anybody can just walk in and use the bar/Beatons.

You might argue that it is providing a service to the students - which is does (in a fashion), but it doesn't do anything of national importance on the grand scale, and by that I mean its overall purpose is not for the direct betterment of our nation. Its direct purpose is for the students, who might be part of the nation, but are not it. Neither does the SA span either nationwide or globally in its powers. They are limited to St Andrews, and even further limited to matter affecting the students.

[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]

[BenEsq]

Shouldn't you be trying to get into honours?

[hr]

Lions and tigers and bears...Oh my!

[Al]

Each time you post, grandpa, you make less sense than the time before. You have a strange ability to look at the facts and still ignore the reality revealed. All the spurious, ill-informed, and downright bizarre reasoning in the world will not disguise that fact.

[David Bean]

Quoting Grandpa from 20:04, 11th Feb 2006
Of course it is. How about doing it through someone else. By the time your thanks reach that other person you are no longer thanking them actively, but rather quite passivley through someone else.

That still requires an action.

I think you'll find the correct grammatical form would be "Can echelons wear gowns?" [s]really, one would have thought that with your degree and all, you would have spotted that?[/s]

There is nothing ungrammatical about referring to them both in the singular - it's entirely possible to have a single echelon or a single gown, and if, as you suggested, it were possible for any number of echelons to wear an equivalent number of gowns, it would similarly be possible for one echelon to wear one gown. But it isn't.

do try to not be so pedantic and long winded about everything.

Don't tempt me...

When I talk about gown-wearing in "the echelons of history with a use begun by those echelons privileged by such history to wear them" what I am talking about is that an institution must belong to an ancient or at least very old genre of institution such that, if it wishes to wear such gowns, it should necessarily have been in 'ancient' or 'old' history that the tradition of wearing such gowns began.

Except that you haven't shown either how old such an institution would need to be, what constitutes a separate genre of institution (why the School of Management but not the Students' Association?), or why age is even a significant factor.

Furthermore, what I have failed to include up until now, is that it is a norm of these gown wearing 'officials' (for want of a better word) that they usually perform (with some exceptions, such as exclusive clubs; also other organisations like Freemasons), in their official capacity, some activity of national importance.

So to wear a gown of office, one must either be undertaking business of national importance, or be an exclusive club? Apart from these distinctions being completely arbitrary, they also rule out a huge variety of cases where nobody could reasonably argue gowns shouldn't be worn. I mentioned the Mayor of Hartlepool relating to the age of an office, but how about any other mayor, whose powers are, by definition and according to legal stature, limited specifically to the local sphere of his own constituency? Association officers also serve a limited constituency, that of the student body of a university, but in the abstract sense there is no relevant distinction between the two.

In addition, you now appear to be contradicting your earlier argument that student officers may gowns iff they sit on the University Court, since sitting on Court in itself does not represent a contribution to an issue of national importance - at least no more so than sitting on another body that may on certain issues turn out to be far more influential in fact than the Court itself (by taking decisions that Court ultimately rubber-stamps), which many of the Association officers do.

What gets me is that the Students' Association is not one of these types of organisation. Nor is it one of the exceptions (such as Freemasons, or the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews - it has been providing a service to golf, (the USA and Mexico excluded), since 1754. It might be termed an exclusive club, although anybody can just walk in and use the bar/Beatons.

Not true: the fact that all matriculated students automatically become members of the Association does not in any way negate its status, de jure and de facto, as a private club, and the Association officers as officers of the club.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Grandpa]

with you, and yet you come back for more.

Can you not agree to disagree?

Oh, I wholeheartedly, and most vociferously do so! I might ask those who continue with their line of attack the same question. If they did, they might be civil about it. But I think it is obvious I am dealing with the incivil kind. I have neither told anyone to 'shut the fuck up' nor have I been very rude (something some of you would do well to look at yourselves for).

I may have pushed the odd jibe such as 'anyone would think that this website was run for right wing activists' but really, that isn't rude, just a statement to try to show the above point (but I'll get slandered for that one way or another...just you watch).

Why don't I just tell the rest of you to shut the fuck up? Because you seem fit to do it to me, and I refuse to fall to your childish level of shut-the-fuck-ups.

Why won't I shut up? Because I am having a discussion. Surely this is what this website is for, and if you don't like my slant on things, don't post and post and post so. Just stop reading and let those who want to have a decent conversation do so.

Basically, would those that persist in renditioning me with ridicule and derision please stop and lets have a decent ongoing conversation? I mean, if an argument was shut down simply after one 'go' each, it wouldn't be much of an argument - and by argumnent I mean the constructive kind of conversation that is allowed to happen in other threads, not the destructive, derisive versiuon that some of you seem kind enough to shower me with.

Quoting Al from 23:58, 11th Feb 2006
Each time you post, grandpa, you make less sense than the time before. You have a strange ability to look at the facts and still ignore the reality revealed. All the spurious, ill-informed, and downright bizarre reasoning in the world will not disguise that fact.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I quite obviously notice the reality - which, quite purely and simply is that the wearing of gowns by those members of the students' association not involved in the university at an official level, etc, should in no way be considered as on a par with those same official levels.

In other words, the wearing of gowns by said members is inappropriate.

That is the reality, and they just make themsleves look foolish by appearing to the outside world as far more important than they actually are.

Exnihilo, if I talk in a 'pompously verbose way', then I might just ask you if you like your use of language to be boring, grey and flat. But I won't ask that, as yours is and that's that.

What Cambridge does is flatly irrelevant as it is an entirely other tradition to that of the Scottish universities.

No, it is quite undulatingly relevant. They are an instance of a gown wearing institution (quite similar to our own, in that they are a university - but you might think not so similar - but them again, I'm not looking at the minutae, simply the overall picture) and as such their customs and traditions are quite relevant, but not as relevant as the reasons behind it all.



[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]

[exnihilo]

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/

Try it, you might like it.

[Grandpa]

Bean, I've just read only half of your post, and I may have the time and energy to reply to it at a later date where I shall catagorically write how I have shown most if not all of the things you say I have not.

I will read the other half, but not tonight - it's late and this old man's tired.

To ex. - thanks, it'll do me some good, but you know, I'm not a pedant for it when I use this site, i normally just get tired of conforming to the rules and type away (word fervour, you might call it) then re-read to see if the general message is there. Like just now, that was one damned long sentence. However, if my not so great grammar is doing me down, or not helping my message come across then I might think about tweaking it a bit. But, as I said, I'm certainly not going to get pedantic about it on this website. Thanks for the thought - I'll add it to my fav.s and check it out.

[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]

[sweet]

I used to work in a sandwich shop. In the morning when we were making sandwiches, sometimes Keith the manager would trot back and ask us to produce a particular sandwich "express" meaning asap.... The new assistant manager picked up on his language, but changed it a little - she would say "Dave, can you express me a salmon baguette?"

[the Empress]

I've got no interest in this thread . . but I just can't help but look.

[Ewan Husami]

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Winston Churchill

[scratter]

Quoting ewan husami from 14:19, 18th Feb 2006
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Winston Churchill

person who works in the design office near the window: shurrup.