Next Candidate...

[a_nord]

Interesting Answers to the questionaire.  I sometimes think people think it's a joke, and they aren't really sure how to anwer.

I find myself scanning the top part of the post to get to the same question:  
What, in your opinion, is the most pressing 'problem' with the GGA, and what will you do to help 'fix' it?

I find it very interesting what

Comments

[ext_8055]

I see the choices slightly different from you. What I saw as two choices were:
1.) Unincorporated Social Club
2.) Incorporated Social Club

You said "Being Serious and being incorporated are not co-dependent." I agree with this, but this also implies that an incorporated group doesn't have to be serious. So if nothing changes before incorporating GGA, then that is what I think we would get, an incorporated social club. So unless changes are made before the push for incorporation, we would get a lot of new hassles but no new benefits.

Wait...

[a_nord]

I didn't say that was the choices we have...They were the choices given to us by Rebel and Marrieta Moose. I believe you are right With everything else you say. I am against incorporation. It's more hassle than it's worth. I just think we could be a social club ...with a social conscience.

I always thought we could make a difference and I fought for a long time for it. But when you have very little leadership, there really isn't any reason to try. It's why I vent here, because if I didn't my head would pop off. And I can, sometime in the future look back here and see what my motivation was. And to keep track of what set me off this week.

What I remember

[ext_8055]

What I remember which due to my age may have little or even no relationship to what really happened. What I heard with my impressions in Italics.

For the GGA (that is the officers) to be taken seriously by land managers, then we (GGA members who vote) should vote for incorporation.

I don't remember hearing anything about changing the way meeting are held or what projects the GGA would do as a group. So I took it as choice between an unincorporated social club and an incorporated social club where the officers think they have more clout/power/influence.

[anonymous]

Heh.. I wish I had read your posts here before I submitted my responses.. C'est la vie. Dunno if I hit stuff or not, but that's no big deal. I got stuff I'd like to see done - caches universally in state parks, for instance - which we need the entire "body" of folx to do. I'm firm against incorporation. I'm against chapters. I still think we can do it as a state-wide organization; we just need to push harder.

...actually, now that I think about it, I think the state park thing was one of the original topics 6 years ago...

I don't expect to win, either. If I don't, no skin off my nose. I have a thick nose. It's purty!

[a_nord]

these are my responses, I don't want them to affect anyone elses. I'm kinda glad you didn't read these first. I would rather people "speechify" with no influence then it's all yours. There is no right or wrong answer when you get down to it. The responses you give are about you.

This has just been my attempt to wrap my mind around something other than eFFFing K-Mart and Panties. It has to latch on to something or I just go crazy.

[ext_6624]

er.. I forgot to log in.. but the other post was from me..

Jason

Incorporate / chapters

[joebids]

Incorporate? I can't see it either unless the powers that be in the parks and forest control would be more favorably responsive.

Chapters? Well I support it, what ever you wish to call a chapter, IF guidelines could be agreed upon. Therefore if guidelines couldn't be drawn, then no affiliated chapter should form.

I agree with you and disagree with them? Got any babies to kiss?