[ucc] RE: [ucc-announce] New Door Group Regime

[Anil Sharma]

At 07:15 PM 13/09/2002 +0800, Matthias Liffers wrote:
> > rules.  The compromise that was reached (and we've been more
> > compromised by this than the guild but it is their building)
>
>The building DOES belong to the Guild, doesn't it?  Aren't we all Guild
>members?
>
>Therefore, the building belongs to us.  The problem is that the Guild
>obviously doesn't believe that we have the maturity and responsibility
>for self-management.  I remember speaking to a current Guild person (I
>can't remember his name) who was very adamant that "Everyone wants the
>services that the Guild provides, but nobody wants to pay for them."
>
>I've paid my Guild membership, my UCC membership, my Unigames membership
>and my UniSFA membership, yet I still don't get to access the Guild
>services that I paid for, when I want to.
>
>Ergh.  Sorry for sounding so political, this just pisses me off.


Bullshit.  For once I think the guild is actually taking responsibility for 
the going ons in Cameron Hall.  I for one do not think that the guild exec 
should accept that our long list of door members is trustworthy.  Four club 
exec plus 6 door is a whole lot easier to trust, and will probably give 
committee more control over door members.

What happened to that thousand and one secret cameras idea for the room btw?

Cheers,
Maset the Grandiose.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 222 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/ucc/attachments/20020914/0f2696fb/attachment.pgp