Quoting Jennifer Loves Chewitts from 21:59, 24th Mar 2007
Heaven forbid that the general student population should choose to refer to their Students' Association casually!
In my post, if you'd actually read it, you'd have seen no opposition to the use of casual references to the Students' Association. If anything the existence of those casual reference options, if you like, renders an acronym even more needless.
I don't see anything wrong with abbreviations, and I don't see why you have such a problem with Olly finding out what people think about it.
Cast your eye to the poll on the side of the screen. Do you see a 'We don't need an acronym, please bugger off' option? I don't. Similarly, Oli's emails did include the brief question 'do we need one?', but everything else was all about what an acronym would be, with no attempt made (other than these cursory words) to stimulate thought or discussion of whether having an acronym at all would be necesary or desirable. My concern is that this is being presented to us as a fait accompli.
If the majority of student agree on an abbreviation, then surely the Union should listen to its members, accept the change, and carry on doing what it does.
I haven't argued with that, but as a member I'm entitled to make an argument that it's a bad idea.
As Olly says, it's only going to be used where necessary (only on the website, as far as I can tell), so I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Again we reach a point where it would have helped for you actually to read my post. There is no way Oli or anyone else can possibly tell now what effect creating an acronym would have in the future. Just because Oli claims it would only be used on some obscure section of a web site already lacking in basic information, doesn't mean he's right. How does he know how other people would choose to use it, perhaps mistakenly at first, but leading to a situation where nobody can remember what the correct form actually is, and all of a sudden we wake up one day and everyone is talking about the SAZI, or whatever other ridiculous set of letters you come up with?
Perhaps you'd prefer to stay with the old ways; resist change; not progress. Perhaps you'd rather have a committee meeting and discuss this sort of matter for hours, before writing a constitutional amendment and having it re-read and re-drafted before being submitted, discussed then approved? Perhaps your time could be better spent?
Oh, har har har. You've just committed one of the greatest logical fallacies of our age: assuming that someone who opposes a change is necessarily wrong to do so, and then sarcastically mounting your high horse about it. You're wrong. If someone wants to make a change to the status quo, it's their job to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it's a change for good, and if someone like me believes that it won't be, they have a moral duty to oppose it. What's all this bull crap about constitutional amendments, anyway? Since when do you need a constitutional amendment to keep things the way they are?
You're a bit ambiguous in your last sentence - are you saying that the Association's image, history and prestige demand that the SSC approve the change, and so should its members?
Was the content of my post unclear in some way? Your obtuseness may appear charming in an eight year old, but - no, pardon me, it's not clever at all.
But it strikes me as odd and somewhat irregular (some might even say two-faced) for you to be so uptight about abbreviating the title of the Students' Association when you happily use "SSC" and "SRC" (the latter, formed nearly a century earlier, has far more history than the newly formed Association!)
Two-faced, because I happen to disagree with you? Well, aren't you a sodding ray of sunshine. And you're saying that because I think the use of acronyms is appropriate to some aspects of the Association, such as its internal committee structure, I therefore become bound to accept them for its commonly used title? I hope to God you aren't pursuing a degree in logic.
[hr]
Psalm 91:7
