[1137] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: a simple question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard J. Barbalace)
Wed Mar 13 17:25:06 2002
Message-ID: <200203132156.QAA27425@w20-575-22.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:56:26 -0500
From: "Richard J. Barbalace" <rjbarbal@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:03:12 -0500.
<200203131903.OAA03373@department-of-alchemy.mit.edu>
> how is a vote for Rhett an "upheaval of the system" as Sebastian has just
> said and others (richard, richard and shawn, specifically) implied?
Assuming one of those "richards" refers to me, I'd just like to correct
that I never mentioned nor implied that votes for Rhett are an "upheaval
of the system." My main points were:
1) Rhett's scheme of buying votes should be a valid use of the Bush Fund.
2) This scheme is better than many previous uses of the Bush Fund.
3) The UA should not use weasily tactics to prevent his election if he
acquires enough votes, nor restrict how he uses the fund.
4) The UA, historically, has performed poorly in making student life
better. In light of some of the examples others have given, I'll
grant they have done a better job than I've given credit.
I'd also like to emphasize that I have not tried to encourage anyone
to vote for Rhett. Were I voting, I'd vote for the person I know best
who comes to my tea parties. ;) But I'm a crufty old alum, and the
undergraduates here ought to know better than to trust the opinions of
the likes of us. So I would suggest that we crufty old alums, along
with any moldy old grad students, shut ourselves up and let the
undergrads do whatever they please. :)
+ Richard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
