The union in general

[Grandpa]

Quoting Bonnie from 00:21, 29th Nov 2005
1.) What is this about Ann Summers parties? Did I miss something? Grandpa, sometimes you make absolutely no sense. She was recounting a time YOU insulted someone by telling them she was only good enough to model Ann Summers and now you're trying to say it was inappropriate people were talking about Ann Summers.
In any case, I wasn't there or have since forgotten..

I never made such a comment, and if i did it would be in the minutes - which it is not.

I have been libelled/slandered - whichever it is.

5.) Grandpa, the SRC has changed significantly since you were on it-- honestly. And I admit that it is significantly better than when I was a sabb and I apologise to the SRC and all students of this University if there was anything I should have done to remedy that. You keep gripping about "the SRC sucks because when I was on it it sucked". That's not a valid argument to make anymore.

How has it changed? (May be I'll email that to someone)

[hr]

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

[the Empress]

Yes, you did, and you admitted it in an earlier message. And it's not in the minutes, because I didn't put it in, thinking it was inappropriate and irrelevant. I only remember because a) I'm really good at remembering people, b)because your ranting/interruptions made it harder to minute!

*Can't believe I've wasted so much time, work avoidance has reached new heights*

Quoting Grandpa from 00:45, 29th Nov 2005

Quoting Bonnie from 00:21, 29th Nov 2005

I never made such a comment, and if i did it would be in the minutes - which it is not.

I have been libelled/slandered - whichever it is.


[hr]

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

[hr]

I wish I had a river to skate away on

[Grandpa]

Quoting munchingfoo from 10:46, 26th Nov 2005

If you care to expand on the non-visible work carried out in the year of your position I would be most pleased.

By the way - I was there for a matter of weeks before the end of last year. Not a year as you think.

[hr]

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

[Ben Reilly]

Quoting Al from 23:15, 28th Nov 2005
Grandpa, grandpa, grandpa.... I really think you have got the wrong end of the stick about the SRC. Its primary remit is - or certainly was - not to be "representational" but "representative". It exists to represent student opinion to the university authorities. In order to represent as wide a cross-section of student opinion it follows that the SRC should contain as wide a cross-section of student opinion as possible. It should not merely be a collection of desperately ridiculous posts. Nor should it go down the road of complete lack of accountability as was recently proposed. Bring back the hall reps, Crichton-Montrose reps, convenors, properly constituted year and constituency reps. If there is a need for the various trivial reps, let them sit on the relevant committees.

Al, I think there is somewhat of a gap in logic there. The job of the SRC is not to represent as wide a cross section of student opinion as possible, it is to represent the student body as a whole!

Surely the SRC should consider as wide a range of student opinion as it can, but there must be some way for it to make coherent decisions. If you have a very wide cross section, but with no democratic basis, how would any decision made by the SRC be actually representative of the student body as a whole?

For example, International Students might say through their representative that all students at St Andrews should pay full fees, as it is unfair that they pay more than EU students. But the member for Widening Access would point out that high fees are counter productive for that.

If the SRC does not have a democratic basis, how can its members make the decision on what to say when it speaks on behalf of the students- because that is, after all, its prime duty ?

[s]Edits: Sorry about all the extra apostrophes...[/i]

[Al]

"Al, I think there is somewhat of a gap in logic there. The job of the SRC is not to represent as wide a cross section of student opinion as possible, it is to represent the student body as a whole!"

I never said ti was. I said its job was to represent students and so should contain as wide a cross-section of student opinion as possible.

"If the SRC does not have a democratic basis, how can its members make the decision on what to say when it speaks on behalf of the students- because that is, after all, its prime duty?"

Democratic basis? Was it not you who wanted to remove reps and convenors from the SRC and to replace them with three people with exactly the same "departmental" remit? Where's the accountability in that? After all, accountability is one of the bedrocks of democracy.

[Ben Reilly]

Not sure where you are making that leap in logic...

I wanted to have people responsible for policy areas, with an Officer and members for each area.

As to what you said, it was "...to represent as wide a cross-section of student opinion...".

By definition, as the SRC must represent to somebody, this is saying it should put forward a wide cross section of student opinion. If this is not what you are saying, then sorry, but I don't have a clue what it is you are saying.

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[Al]

A leap in logic? Hardly. Say the accommodation team consists of an accommodation officer and three reps. The officer would, I presume, have a remit. What about the reps? Would you have three people with exactly the same remit? That could just lead to one person doing much more work than the others. And - as long as the work was being done - there would be no reason for it not to happen.

As for the other thng, I did say that. Oops. I apologise. What I meant was that the SRC should contain more than just officers and reps with a very narrow field of interest. If the hall reps were re-instated to the full SRC, the SRC would not only have a far wider pool of people to work with, you would stand a good chance of reconnecting with the student body.

[David Bean]

First of all, Grandpa, this Ann Summers business is getting out of hand. I know exactly what happened: nobody mentioned anything about Ann Summers until you did, possibly because you'd misheard someone else's comment, but the point is that when you say that to make mention of it was irrelevant and inappropriate, I couldn't agree more. thoroughly embarassing, I thought. And of course you won't find reference to it in the minutes - the secretary isn't that stupid, you know!

Anyway, your position doesn't make any sense. You seem to be of the opinion that the system isn't working, so we should leave it the way that it is until it magically starts to work, but in the mean time we should convert the SRC into some bizarre form of direct democracy, with referenda every five minutes. Can you give me an example of any other institution in the world that runs itself like that? I'm blowed if I can think of one, anyway.

The thing is, you can't just keep coming up with random, nonsensical schemes that nobody agrees with, and then throwing tantrums when they aren't implemented, saying nobody's listening to you, or that they're all useless, or whatever. Well, you can, but you'll look like an idiot. The fact that you've had some extra experience in life outside university doesn't magically endow you with greater wisdom than the rest of the student body, no matter what you might think. In fact, I would have thought that the students who take the time to come to understand the system they're working in, and then offer sensible proposals for working within the system or changing it into a more suitable form, demonstrate a far greater degree of common sense than someone who comes steaming in, knowing nothing about it but proclaiming they and they alone have the solution based on working for a few years somewhere else.

Finally, the reason why you're not being listened to isn't that your style is 'hard-hitting'. You always go on about that, as though it's some kind of virtue. It might be in some people's cases, but in yours it's merely a euphemism. I'll tell you something. I like to consider myself quite a plain speaker, in meetings, on message boards and in private conversations. I don't mince my words, and I don't like it when people do. But there's a big difference between that, saying what you think in a plain manner, and being downright offensive, belittling people, trying to mount some sort of pseudo-psychological character assassination. What is it that makes you think a total absence of tact, which has to my specific knowledge led you to hurt people very deeply, is in some way a good thing? Do you think that the people you've hurt, the friendships you've broken, are somehow justified by the fact that, hey, you spoke your mind? Why is that so damned important to you?

If that's the way you want to be, well, it's up to you. But there's a big difference between saying, "this is who I am, take me or leave me" and saying, "this is who I am, now what are YOU going to do about it?!".

[hr]

I'm your Guardian Angel.

[Ben Reilly]

Quoting Al from 15:29, 29th Nov 2005
A leap in logic? Hardly. Say the accommodation team consists of an accommodation officer and three reps. The officer would, I presume, have a remit. What about the reps? Would you have three people with exactly the same remit? That could just lead to one person doing much more work than the others. And - as long as the work was being done - there would be no reason for it not to happen.

Well then, at the moment we have officers whose remits are (if you imagine a Venn diagram), within that of the DoR, who is the one who gets it in the neck if things are not done.

The role of the committee would be take consult with the various stakeholder groups, design a plan of action, have it agreed by the SRC, and then carry it out- the responsibility being with the whole committee.

As for the other thng, I did say that. Oops. I apologise. What I meant was that the SRC should contain more than just officers and reps with a very narrow field of interest. If the hall reps were re-instated to the full SRC, the SRC would not only have a far wider pool of people to work with, you would stand a good chance of reconnecting with the student body.

Ah, OK. Hall reps are not a viable way of constituting an SRC when you have a large and diverse student body, and it is very difficult to do democratically. How many reps should each hall have? And how would they compare to the Crichton Montrose reps?

Durham have enough problems even though all of their students are assigned a college!

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[RJ Covino]

In addition to what David has just said, I'd just like to chip in my two cents about this constant reference to age as an indicator of the respect we ought to have for a certain someone's opinion. It bears pointing out that a number of the chief architects of the present system of representation (which, like communism, would work just great if people would just do their jobs, quit complaining and stop being so damned selfish all the time) are all as old, if not older, than "Grandpa."

Come to think of it, the majority of them had University degrees as well - in some cases several.

Further, the changes which were made were implemented taking into account the advice of a number of sabbaticals who had gone before, all graduates, but who also have experience of the working world.

If I were to name the single biggest problem I have with the "new" St Andrews (which I will define as post-HRH St Andrews), it's that there now seem to be a larger number of Jonny-come-lately's around who know not our ways, our customs, our traditions and yet seem to think that they are qualified to tell us why they are all wrong without bothering to learn how they got to be the way they are. I don't view this as a terrifically good thing.

Of course, I don't have to care anymore, which is a VERY good thing - I'm very glad I'm out of the system. I don't think I could stomach the constant barrage of nonsense that's being spewed by certain parties.

[hr]

http://www.ralphcovino.com

[Ben Reilly]

Ralph, how are you defining "work just great" for that?

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[RJ Covino]

Quoting Ben Reilly from 18:04, 29th Nov 2005
Ralph, how are you defining "work just great" for that?

I dunno - "spiffingly" just about sums it up; however, I don't think that's really a word.

And Ben, people who "defriend" me on facebook get to call me Dr Covino.

[hr]

http://www.ralphcovino.com

[Ben Reilly]

Have I defriended you?

Oops, if so, sorry.

Again, please give some indicators of what is "spiffingly".

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[RJ Covino]

Quoting Ben Reilly from 22:42, 29th Nov 2005
Have I defriended you? Oops, if so, sorry.

I'm over it. I've been culling the old friends list myself. Useless tossers.

Again, please give some indicators of what is "spiffingly".

You know, everybody getting along, each according to his capacity, each according to his need. Just like Jesus commanded when he told his followers to sell all their belongings and give the proceeds to the less fortunate. He was a pure dead visionary, him.

[hr]

http://www.ralphcovino.com

[Ben Reilly]

That sounds like a good way of the officers working, but what about the SRC itself?

Or would you let each officer decide unilaterally what they are going to do and say?

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[Grandpa]

Finally, the reason why you're not being listened to isn't that your style is 'hard-hitting'. You always go on about that, as though it's some kind of virtue. It might be in some people's cases, but in yours it's merely a euphemism. I'll tell you something. I like to consider myself quite a plain speaker, in meetings, on message boards and in private conversations. I don't mince my words, and I don't like it when people do. But there's a big difference between that, saying what you think in a plain manner, and being downright offensive, belittling people, trying to mount some sort of pseudo-psychological character assassination. What is it that makes you think a total absence of tact, which has to my specific knowledge led you to hurt people very deeply, is in some way a good thing? Do you think that the people you've hurt, the friendships you've broken, are somehow justified by the fact that, hey, you spoke your mind? Why is that so damned important to you?

Absence of tact - yes. Friendships I've hurt - hmmm, if people have a problem with me, I generally respect them more for coming to me and telling me what's up, or if someone has the tactful initiative to come to me and tell me where I'm out of order.

Posting things about my personality on a website is exactly what I'd call lack of tact.

By the way, most of your so-called friends think you're a t*sser too.

Is that what you mean by lack of tact?

Bean, you can be the most inconsiderate arsehole, as I can. I've always been about the take me or leave me part, and if you can't deal with me, ignore me and stop crying about me. For fuck's sake young man.

And the reason I'm not going to be listened to isn't as you say, that no-one agrees with me. there seem to be a few of my posts that have meandered into each other, and, if you'd stop jumping up and down like a 5 year old, you might actually recognise that along with the dissent, there's quite a bit of agreement in there as well, sort it all out from the dissent and you'll see that some people actually do feel that what I've said has some body to it.

Now, f*ck off and if you have a problem with the way I've been Bean, come and tell me and I'll more than happily talk about it and hopefully clear up any of your future tantrums before thay happen.

Remember the t*sser bit.

Oh, and please, forgive my similar lack of tact.

[hr]

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

[exnihilo]

Dear, oh dear. I don't know anything about your background, but I can't imagine this attitude played well in the real world. Your style isn't hard-hitting, you're not John Harvey Jones. Your style is, in fact, heavy-handed, self-important, abrasive and obnoxious. You're forever telling us that you're older and know more than us (wrong!), why not try acting in a more mature fashion?

This last post of yours does no credit to you, and going back to change the vowels in fuck and tosser to asterisks really doesn't make it less of a childish rant. Grandpa, grow up, and try heeding some of your own advice.

[hr]

Don't feel bad about yourself; every ladder needs a bottom rung.

[Grandpa]

Quoting exnihilo from 09:16, 30th Nov 2005
Dear, oh dear. I don't know anything about your background, but I can't imagine this attitude played well in the real world. Your style isn't hard-hitting, you're not John Harvey Jones. Your style is, in fact, heavy-handed, self-important, abrasive and obnoxious. You're forever telling us that you're older and know more than us (wrong!), why not try acting in a more mature fashion?

This last post of yours does no credit to you, and going back to change the vowels in fuck and tosser to asterisks really doesn't make it less of a childish rant. Grandpa, grow up, and try heeding some of your own advice.

[hr]

b*gger off and stop shit stirring

oooo, asterisks, deary me, can you handle them?

[hr]

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

[exnihilo]

I'm doing no such thing, as you very well know. You, on the other hand, really are behaving like a child now. Hardly surprising though.

[hr]

Don't feel bad about yourself; every ladder needs a bottom rung.

[RJ Covino]

Quoting Ben Reilly from 23:36, 29th Nov 2005
That sounds like a good way of the officers working, but what about the SRC itself?

Or would you let each officer decide unilaterally what they are going to do and say?

Do you want my honest opinion or do I still have to pretend to be a communist and/or Christ-botherer?

[hr]

http://www.ralphcovino.com