{{{{{{{BREAKING NEWS!!!}}}}}} Tulsa Folks may be forced out!!! NO DUAL MEMBERSHIP!!!!

[bishopnl]

cir·cum·vent /ˌsɜrkəmˈvɛnt, ˈsɜrkəmˌvɛnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sur-kuhm-vent, sur-kuhm-vent] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1. to go around or bypass: to circumvent the lake; to circumvent the real issues.
2. to avoid (defeat, failure, unpleasantness, etc.) by artfulness or deception; avoid by anticipating or outwitting: He circumvented capture by anticipating their movements.

IF circumvention is just bypassing by-laws or
IF circumvention is an attempt to, by artfulness or deception, avoid said by-laws...

why would we want to be involved in either one? Just leave, or stay. Why would there need to be some delicate wording involved in order to justify involvement in two organizations?

Because renaming something doesn't make it something else. I daresay if a lady member showed up in one of these more conservative churches tomorrow in a pair of slacks, and justified it by calling it a "split dress" it still wouldn't change the fact in the eyes of the pastor that she's wearing slacks. Calling an organization a "fellowship" so a pastor can retain dual membership isn't going to change what it is...it's only going to be an artful way of circumventing the rules. And IMO, that's unethical.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by bishopnl

cir·cum·vent /ˌsɜrkəmˈvɛnt, ˈsɜrkəmˌvɛnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sur-kuhm-vent, sur-kuhm-vent] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1. to go around or bypass: to circumvent the lake; to circumvent the real issues.
2. to avoid (defeat, failure, unpleasantness, etc.) by artfulness or deception; avoid by anticipating or outwitting: He circumvented capture by anticipating their movements.

IF circumvention is just bypassing by-laws or
IF circumvention is an attempt to, by artfulness or deception, avoid said by-laws...

why would we want to be involved in either one? Just leave, or stay. Why would there need to be some delicate wording involved in order to justify involvement in two organizations?

Because renaming something doesn't make it something else. I daresay if a lady member showed up in one of these more conservative churches tomorrow in a pair of slacks, and justified it by calling it a "split dress" it still wouldn't change the fact in the eyes of the pastor that she's wearing slacks. Calling an organization a "fellowship" so a pastor can retain dual membership isn't going to change what it is...it's only going to be an artful way of circumventing the rules. And IMO, that's unethical.

IF it is true that a DS told a man he would not be under charges for having a TV

IF it is true that many Districts openly permit TV advertising prior to Tulsa

IF it is true that the AS was by passed this year to allow the number to be artificial of the loss due to the fallout.

Then all the other IF questions are moot IFF (scientific term meaning "if and only if") anyone still cares about integrity.

[bishopnl]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

IF it is true that a DS told a man he would not be under charges for having a TV

IF it is true that many Districts openly permit TV advertising prior to Tulsa

IF it is true that the AS was by passed this year to allow the number to be artificial of the loss due to the fallout.

Then all the other IF questions are moot IFF (scientific term meaning "if and only if") anyone still cares about integrity.

IF we are basing our own unethical actions on actions that we consider to be unethical by others, we are walking a very slippery slope.

[Coonskinner]

I was an adamant NO voter on Res. 3.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

I was an adamant NO voter on Res. 3.

Yes ... you've made that abundantly clear.

But the good liberal supt. of Alabama did.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Yes ... you've made that abundantly clear.

But the good liberal supt. of Alabama did.

I didn't see Res. 3 as a liberal vs. conservative issue.

I saw it as a way to give District Boards more power.

And I am always opposed to that.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

I didn't see Res. 3 as a liberal vs. conservative issue.

I saw it as a way to give District Boards more power.

And I am always opposed to that.

I agree w/ your view.

Yet the measure was supported by many cons .... here, on other forums and at GC .... and a con spoke in favor of it on the floor...

the vote was so close that a chaotic standing count was taken ....

[stmatthew]

If this was done, they would need to pull those in the AWCF and NCO out also, right??

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

If this was done, they would need to pull those in the AWCF and NCO out also, right??

If we continue, we will not have anything to discuss on Feb 2.....

[Scott Hutchinson]

I thought one couldn't hold a license with UPCI and a another org, ever since the UPCI has been around.
This is nothing new I understand the UPCI has long been agains't double-carding.