[23156] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Issue Two
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Finder)
Tue Nov 12 10:29:06 2002
"Reply-To: "
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:27:56 -0400
Reply-To: Randy Finder <naraht@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: Randy Finder <naraht@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPX.4.44.0211112314460.6839-100000@students.depaul.edu>
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Eric R Field wrote:
> When you get a PORTION of the active signatures, I think there is less to
> worry about actives sabotaging since the pledge doesn't need EVERY
> signature. This can equally apply for the smaller chapters by requiring
> perhaps signatures from 75% of the chapter. The requirement should allow
> some flexibility since pledges completing requirements aren't always black
> and white. By making it "a good portion" instead of "all," that still
> allows the pledges to complete their requirements.
Sounds good. I'm pro-signatures, anti-all signatures. :)
Randolph Finder
>
> iLFS,
> Eric Field
> Section 48 Staff
> Alumnus, Alpha Phi chapter, Washington University
>
>
>
--
Leadership, Friendship and Service - Alpha Phi Omega
