Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Athens · May 28, 2005, 04:46 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/27/gol....ap/index.html

I think there bored of directors are idiots.

Nivag · May 28, 2005, 04:52 AM

crikey, that's a bit harsh!

Oisín · May 28, 2005, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by Athens

I think there bored of directors are idiots.

Please tell me that sentence was inspired by the 'Lose/loose' thread.

Mastrap · May 28, 2005, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by Athens

I think there bored of directors are idiots.

Just, wow. On both counts.

PurpleGiant · May 28, 2005, 07:36 AM

It pains me to read.

DBursey · May 28, 2005, 08:02 AM

I'm bored with directors also.

Apple Pro Underwear · May 28, 2005, 08:14 AM

what does that organization really do anyway?

if it's BS support group, she should join another one.

Cody Dawg · May 28, 2005, 08:28 AM

This is a great thread but should be in Political Lounge to get the most attention.

budster101 · 11:13 AM

Ok, I read the story...

12 women in a rooom together? My god, how does anything get done? Kidding.

That just sounds really very strange. They can make an exception to the rule, such that if like in this case the child of a person dies in battle, there is an automatic inclusion. That wouldn't be so hard to do while still keeping their prescious rules in tact. Call it an Amendment.

Sort of peeves me off a bit.

brapper · May 28, 2005, 10:58 AM

that's an upsetting story.
and in case Athens has no idea what everyone's going on about, it's board of directors, not bored.

wdlove · May 28, 2005, 11:55 AM

It's a private organization and has the right to set its own rules.

osxisfun · May 28, 2005, 12:02 PM

Those 12 women hate america.

Apple Pro Underwear · May 28, 2005, 12:15 PM

hating america is what makes this country great.

budster101 · May 28, 2005, 01:00 PM

WD: Though you are correct, this instance shows a lack of understanding and desire on the part of this organzitaion to be flexible without being flexible. There is a chance for a win/win here. They don't have to change the charter to allow this to come out ok for both sides. If they were to vote in an amendment for this special circumstance, then it would be nice.

Atriot · May 28, 2005, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by wdlove

It's a private organization and has the right to set its own rules.

Yes but apparently it receives Federal funding.

budster101 · May 28, 2005, 01:16 PM

I'm not certain where the difference arises when mentioning "Federal Assistance" as opposed to your "Federal Funding". This could be important, but I don't know. Either way, I am of the mind that they should make an amendment.

Zimphire · May 28, 2005, 01:33 PM

Oisín · May 28, 2005, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by brapper

and in case Athens has no idea what everyone's going on about, it's board of directors, not bored.

And it's 'their', not 'there'.

James L · May 28, 2005, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by wdlove

It's a private organization and has the right to set its own rules.

And a right to be completely close minded idiots, which they are exercising to its fullest potential.

budster101 · May 28, 2005, 03:50 PM

For the sake of playing devil's advocate here, and for a moment countering my own words, I'd like to point out that wdlove, and the comment about the private organization having the right to set it's own rules.

I did concede this to be true, but to demonstrate further how true, let's take the following example.

10 men wish to start their own Poker Clube and as a part of their charter, they insist the men who join either be single or divorced. No married men allowed for various reasons. Also, no women allowed.

Why not married men? Here is a novel thought. Married men, usually don't have the free time and this could upset the whole relationship thing going on. Whatever the reasoning, they have their reasons.

What is wrong with this? Anything? It leaves a few people out, who would love to join in, but then it is a Private Club, and if they were to break with the originating charter of the founders, then the club's reason and entire culture would be upset at this interjection.

I'm not defending these women, because I think they should have taken some time and atttempted to find a way, as this is a very emotional issue, unlike poker. Well, some people are emotional about poker too.

dcmacdaddy · May 28, 2005, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by Athens

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/27/gol....ap/index.html

I think there bored of directors are idiots.

That's just ridiculous. That is NO way to treat the family of a soldier who died defending their freedoms.

It reminds me of a similar story in the Washington Post from the Fall of 2003 that had a much different outcome. They had a big front-page picture of the Secretary's of Defense, Veteran's Affairs, and Homeland Security attending a swearing-in ceremony for a new citizen. Turns out the guy was a soldier in the US Army and was taking the oath of citizenship at Walter Reed Army Medical Center after having lost both legs and one arm in Iraq due to a IED. Now, that is the way to treat someone who served their country . . . before it was even their country.

budster101 · May 28, 2005, 04:21 PM

I agree. If one's family member serves a country he/she doesn't even have citizenship in, then there are special grounds for equal treatment. There is no higher honor a person can bestow on one's adopted country than to serve and even die for it. This is the greatest sacrifice and is why these people have been shown to be less than genuous in their intentions is beyond me.

That said. Why bother with them? Isn't there a few dozen other groups that would except this person?
What is the real bother? They cannot be very big, though now I am prompted to look into this more.