http://www.theeagle.com/stories/072706/am_20060727029.php

One step closer.

Yesterday's decision seems to have been a minor and peripheral one. The key decision still awaits an opinion by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Oral arguments are almost a year old, and it's possible that Hurricane Katrina has played a factor in the court's ability to catch up.

Basically, the appeals court will rule on whether the state liability cap can be exceeded because of the plaintiffs allege Bonfire constituted a "state created danger."

A second and almost as important issue deals with the plaintiffs' ability to sue state employees and receive judgments from their personal assets. This is an attempt to drain the pockets (and retirement incomes) of Bowen, Sutherland, Kibler, Thompson, et al.

In my view, unless the liability cap can be lifted and the personal wealth of the principal defendants can be tapped, there isn't much to gain by proceeding with the personal injury litigation in state court. Under the liability cap, there isn't much to feed a hungry lawyer.

If the appeals court sustains the liability cap and indemnification of employees, expect to see settlements in relatively short order. We're talking about a legal timetable here, not necessarily what you and I would consider "short order."

If, however, the court lifts the liability cap, expect an appeals process and subsequent court trials that could stretch into the next decade.

A personal observation: I respect Dr. Gates' integrity when he says he'll review the subject of Bonfire when the litigation is closed. However, the moratorium on action pending the completion of litigation is the perfect poison pill for those who never want to see Bonfire burn on campus again.

When the university deals with a miscreant student organization, it suspends recognition until everyone has graduated or otherwise left the university community. Postponing a decision on Bonfire's future is the perfect way, in the eyes of some, to bleed the tradition dry. Those who oppose Bonfire's resumption because they believe it would be too dangerous, or because they dislike other aspects of the tradition, hope enthusiasm will die out before the last lawsuit and appeal is settled.

Of course, if the Fifth Circuit rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the cases will certainly eclipse the remainder of Dr. Gates' term.

The horrible part about the ruling regarding parental recovery for injuries sucks right now for some of those with pending litigation. The fact that John Comstock, a personal friend of mine, couldn't file due to rulings like one mentioned is really rather horrible. Seeing as 99 falls well outside the legal statutes of limitation, odds are if his parents filed on his behalf while he was spending those 2 months in ICU means he may never be able to recover the money the University promised to pay for his medical costs.

While I wholeheartedly love Bonfire, this ruling will only help the University and the former administrations that were here while it happen dodge the promises and responsibilities they had to those injured and killed.

This hits kind of close to home for me on both sides of the issue. I would love to see the litigation over, but I'd much rather see it over in that those injured are compensated justly, not denied their claims over technicalities.

I would love to see these suits settled.... IF...

Those claims are the claims to pay for medical expenses and not to pay for "cell phone minutes" (the one parent that wanted to be compensated all of her charges to make business phone calls and not phone calls for the sake of her child.) But there becomes a fine line between which expenses are ligitimate and WHO gets how much. I would love more than anything else for the Comstocks and all others to be paid to compensate for all out of pocket expenses that were promised and should be paid under A&Ms liability insurance.

bonfirecoalition.com

Just wanted to remind you Ags that there IS a RECOGNIZED student organization that will continue to lobby to get Bonfire back following the conclusion of the lawsuits. (regardless of how long it takes.

Unlike our predicessors (KTFB, etc.) we have gained an upstanding reputation with TAMU admistrators and have sustained a place on campus since fall of OCtober of 2002. We have no plans of quiting any time soon. After all, "Aggies never quit!"

We are aware that many old Ags, even families of the 12 see Bonfire buring on campus as the best way to honor their loved ones and the hardwork and dedication of thousands of Aggies for such a unique and irreplacable tradition.

We do more than lobby, but it remains our #1 goal. We HAVE acchieved all of our other goals (including the lift of the moratorium on the sale of Bonfire Merchandise , with the help of the Aggie Mom's Federation) so far so we are far from discouraged.. afteall.. they are all uphill battles and we know that going in...


Gig'em and God Bless Texas A&M.

TXAgg05,

Are you an executive, member, or former member? The reason I ask is because I have seen little to no reason why BCS and SB couldn't reach some sort of common ground so they could work together. In my experience as a student there has always been a "rivalry," if not BATTLE, between both parties. Both organizations support similar ideas, yet abide by different methods. I feel that a consolidated front could achieve a whole lot more than two organizations at odds. It truly would be a more convincing argument in ANY situation if you had all the bonfire activists unite in common goals.

Yes, SB has no affliation with the University but its members certainly do. If SB did its own thing and didn't hinder BCS, and the hundreds of SB members aided the BCS, so much more on could be done on this campus. Yes, litigation hinders the actual "bringing it back... the right way" (whatever your perspective) but until that day work with all Bonfire supporters and don't hinder the approach of others unless you know what you are hindering (This statement goes for both organizations).

I always wondered this, but anytime I approached either side there seemed to be a preconceived notion... more like prejudice towards the "opposing" organization.

If you still have an affliation to the BCS, I would love to sit down and talk Bonfire rather than read pamphlets or websites.

Thanks and Gig 'Em

Snoball,

Just realize that in its' infancy, the Bonfire Coalition for Students was the primary responsible party for much of the smear campaign against Keep The Fire Burning, (which lead to) Unity Project, (which lead to) Aggie Student Bonfire.

My buddies and I received our fair share of insults and one-fingered gestures for our role in building Bonfire off-campus during those years. There is no love lost between former members of BCS and many of the Bonfire builders of '02, '03, '04.

If the newer members of BCS are less volatile in their outlook towards ASB, then I wish y'all the best of luck in working together.

Until then, I'll be Building the Hell, because my opinion remains:
Bonfire Coalition for Students = All Talk
Aggie Student Bonfire = Action

Agg05, we'd be happy to have you out at Cut this year. I mean it.

Daniel "Moose" Eggert II '02


Remember '99.
OC Hogs Build Bonfire!

quote:

---

Unlike our predicessors (KTFB, etc.) we have gained an upstanding reputation with TAMU admistrators and have sustained a place on campus since fall of OCtober of 2002.

---

AFter the scene at the student senate meeting was reported in the batt last year, you may have had the administration behind you, but you appaled alot of students. When I got here, I beleived both orginzations were working for the same goal. Coming into the third year, I realise thats a phalacy.

Im not shure what BCS is trying to prove, but I have heard your members openly critisize SBA for not only keeping bonfire alive, but have perpetuated rumors that what were doing does not follow tradition. The ONLY visible thing i have seen BCS do on campus is make up pots and positions, and perpetuate falsehoods about bonfire traditions and an orginization working for the smae goal you claim to.

Every time you post a smug comment like " the OFFICIALY recognized studetn orginization", you alienate your brothers in arms. This is one fight, one goal, and when half the army starts manuvering against the other half of itself.... well you then become an enemy force.

You all need to step back and think about the consequences of making SBA angry. All of us, from the lowliest fish to the SRP, want bonfire back on campus were it was. Ive had the pleasure of attending two, the last on duncan field, AND the last on campus fire to burn in '98. I want to see another burn before My own children come here at least.

How do you think it will be built if it returns to campus? The same men and women you so deliberatly scorn are the ones who will be there for first cut. They will bring the passdowns theve received, the pot lines, the traditions back with them. Alienating so many of us, including students who have never been at cut or stack, but support SBA, is creating another obstacle in your proclaimed plan.

____________________________________________________________
Proudest member of the Fightin Texas Aggie class of 08 Beat the h*** outa tu A-A-A Whoop!!!. May bonfire forever burn in our hearts.....and may the Twelfth Man ever burn it in memory and in hope for the future.

Band.studentbonfire.com

quote:

---

no reason why BCS and SB couldn't reach some sort of common ground so they could work together. In my experience as a student there has always been a "rivalry," if not BATTLE, between both parties. Both organizations support similar ideas, yet abide by different methods.

---

Snoball-
You are so right...We do have the same goals. The rivalry has been perpetuated in past years by both sides..
but our members have been strictly forbidden to engage in negative comments or "bashing" of SB. Of course we can't control our member's personal opinions but if they are found to be making such comments know that it is NOT the feeling of our organization as a whole...just as members of SB continue to be less than cordial to our members...

The most recent example involved vandalism of our small Bonfire trailer that we use for promotions, vulgar staements and the rude interuptions of our members while they are trying to recruit new members.

BCS has been trying to reach out to the leaders of SB for the past few years to try and combat this. I was a forestry student as an undergrad and as such was good friends with one of last year's Jr Grey's. BCS's leaders met with him and discussed how to better the relationship between the two organizations. It is my understanding that this years leaders are hoping to contiue this throughout following years.

now I need to emphasize that BCS CAN NOT offically support what SB does... otherwise we would be kicked out the door and would loose our status as a recognized student organization...some may say that BCS doesn't "DO" anything and that SB is the organizatin that does the "action" but this is untrue...

We just do other actions...ones that will make reaching the goal of returning Bonfire to Texas A&M a reality.

We have played major roles in getting the Bonfire Moratorium lifted, getting Bonfire allowed as a Fish Camp topic of discussion, the Bonfire Memoiral Dedication off without a hitch and provide a constant remider to Dr. Gates and the student body that Bonfire will always have a place on Texas A&M's campus..whether it burns on campus again or not. We also are tryign to minimize the red tape that will be in the way when litigation ends. We work with the families of the 12 to make sure that they know that thier sons & daughters are stil not forgtten .. by overseeing all Bonfire Remembrance activites each year. We educated Aggie Moms, new students, dorms and anyone who will listen.. what Bonfire was and why thousands of Aggies built it and why 12 people were at Stack at 2:42 instead of home asleep...

It is hard for those of us who know, love and understand Bonfire to grasp how students dont get this concept but the reality is that as each year passes thousands of Aggies attend A&M without ever knowing what the Aggie Spirit TRULY IS.

quote:

---

Just realize that in its' infancy, the Bonfire Coalition for Students was the primary responsible party for much of the smear campaign against Keep The Fire Burning, (which lead to) Unity Project, (which lead to) Aggie Student Bonfire.

---

Unfortunatley this was du to a couple of members who are no longer affiliated with either organization... It is my understanding that a member who had disaggreed with some of the ways BCs was going about things resulted in that member's move to a leadership role in SB.. and thus resulted a personal rivalry that tanted both organizations' abilites to be amicablefor numerous years (as these members remained active in each's respective organization)

quote:

---

My buddies and I received our fair share of insults and one-fingered gestures for our role in building Bonfire off-campus during those years. There is no love lost between former members of BCS and many of the Bonfire builders of '02, '03, '04.

---

The insults went both ways and BCS members were and still are frequently ostercized by SB members. (especially if they live on-campus) I have belived that this has arisen due to a lack of understanding as to what BCS does in relation to getting Bonfire back.

I am glad to see that '05 wasn't in that list.. hopefully that means things are improving.

quote:

---

If the newer members of BCS are less volatile in their outlook towards ASB, then I wish y'all the best of luck in working together.

Until then, I'll be Building the Hell, because my opinion remains:
Bonfire Coalition for Students = All Talk
Aggie Student Bonfire = Action

---

As I mentioned above.. I know that leadership opinions have changed, as have most of our members... and as far as the all talk.. please also see my statements above.

Finally, as far as you building the HELL... I say go for it.. I have personal reasons ad to why I don't do SB but that isn't to say that I don't see what y'all do as valuable and a contribution to Aggie Spirit...

I was just blessed to see & be apart of Bonfires on campus and I know that it doesn't compare.. going makes my heart ache and SO I am motivated to work even harder to get it back onto campus so all Aggies can know the passion and fire that is what Bonfire ON CAMPUS was... with a unified student body - ALL of the 12th man, the band, yell leaders and the FB team, etc.

[This message has been edited by TXAgg05 (edited 8/30/2006 11:55p).]

quote:

---

After the scene at the student senate meeting was reported in the batt last year, you may have had the administration behind you, but you appaled alot of students. When I got here, I beleived both orginzations were working for the same goal. Coming into the third year, I realise thats a phalacy.

---

Well, politics are poltics and I hate to say it but we often have to play their game.. HOWEVER.....I MUST clarify something regarding the batt and the Sentate's bill...

Logical reasoning perpetuates that you must aprrove of someone's deeds before you thank them... we agree that Sb does a great thing but we were worried about potential impplications of such a bill being passed.. and I'll try to explain as best I can...

FIRST, BCS wasn't given all the facts about the bill. The timming and content of the bill both seemed a bit shady and we were only knew about the bill shortly before that Senate meeting...(not that it excusses anything but we went on all the available knowledge we had at the time...) Ask SB leaders and they'll tell you that same story...

Second...

Senate is an offical representative of TAMU... if they recognize or thanks ofcampus Bonfire we were and still) are concerned of how this might affect the possibilty of Bonfire returning to campus...

Third...

BCS worked VERY hard to gain recognition by TAMU administration.. (It took us 2 yrs of lobbying to complet ae process that usually takes less than 2 months for any other student organization) if SB was recgonized- as was the original draft..we were concerned about the potential imapcts upon our ability to work effectievly with TAMU admistration...as it is we often go through cycles of waining support due to Bonfire related events (litigations, etc.) We also have difficulties getting TAMU administrarors to work with us because they think we are SB... and that would also result in several serious problems for TAMU until litigation ends.

I know that might sound selfish or something but I don't know how else to put it.. there were some serious concerns which resulted from the bill and thus potentially could impacts BCS's abiltiy to achieve our goal of getting Bonfire back or to contiue to be a presence on campus.

As far as the BATT article goes.. they never seem to get our side of the story 100% right.. which always results in drama... if you ever want to clarify..feel free to email our chair or come to a meeting..

quote:

---

Im not shure what BCS is trying to prove, but I have heard your members openly critisize SBA for not only keeping bonfire alive, but have perpetuated rumors that what were doing does not follow tradition.

---

I am a bit cofused by this comment so I'll try my best to respond...let me know if I'm not following this right...

you say that BCS has crticized SB for keeping Bonfire alive and that it doesn't follow tradition?

Why would that make any sense? Yes, we often say that SB doesn't represent ALL of what the tradition of Bonfire used to be like but... that IS the truth.

That isn't the same as saying that SB doesn't follow tradition.. Bonfire was off-campus from 1902 until 1909. It began as a trash pile in Bryan...how in the heck would would it NOT be following a tradition?

SB does do a good job of comming as close as possible to Bonfire experience for now -for a TON of students...BCS tries to replicate the same process through our organization as well...

quote:

---

The ONLY visible thing I have seen BCS do on campus is make up pots and positions, and perpetuate falsehoods about bonfire traditions and an orginization working for the smae goal you claim to.

---

What falsehoods are you refering to?

We have done our best to "educate" our members about Bonfire, its meaning, tradition, how it was bulit, its history and how it is intricately tied to Texas A&M's history. Unfortunately though, after 1999 Bonfire became as "off-limit" topic for several years. We have done a ton of research into Bonfire's history, sturcture (including both it's physical structure and it leadership sturctures)

If we have made a grevious error we are always willing to correct anything we have wrong...for example, a Red Pot saw our presentation last fall in the MSC during remberance week and poitned out several errors...since we are restricted by the university from contacting old Bonfire leadership until litgation ends...either they must come to us or we have to find out info by other means...

Why did BCS support the off-campus Bonfire, built by golf course workers, in Magnolia circa 2002?

The day that just one person involved with BCS gives any answer that makes sense, I'll back off of them. Your ship was sunk that night, when a bunch of the "brains" behind Student Bonfire and some of their close Bonfire friends went to that Bonfire. We went just to chill out and spend time together, not to take Bonfire seriously, but then we saw the only recognized student Bonfire group effectively endorsing a Bonfire built by outside labor and watched by a bunch of people getting drunk.

SB has lost their share of battles in the courtroom of public opinion, but BCS committed organizational suicide with that stunt.

I guess I could enter a further diatribe about the idea that BCS wants to "work" with SB but goes out of their way to discredit them immediately... (see the first post by TXAgg05, and phrases like "RECOGNIZED" and "unlike our predicessors [sic] (KTFB), we have gained an upstanding relationship"...)

but I digress.

[This message has been edited by AB2 (edited 8/31/2006 2:20a).]

quote:

---

Keep The Fire Burning, (which lead to) Unity Project, (which lead to) Aggie Student Bonfire.

---

Wrong. I helped start UP, and it was never an off-shoot of KTFB. There was one former member of KTFB involved with UP, and all he did was compile a worthless Bonfire CD.

History
For months after the Bowen decision to halt future Bonfires, a small group of students set out to plan, finance, and build a Bonfire in 2002. At the same time, a group of dorm leaders were doing the same thing. When they learned about eachother, they combined efforts in March of '02 and UP became a collection of concerned '02 and '03 students who didn't want to leave aTm without passing on the knowledge of how to build Bonfire.

KTFB was a flash in the pan from '00 to '01 and died before UP was formed.

BCs vs. UP
BCs was initially a thorn in the side of UP. They would stand in the same area (Rudder Fountain), hand out information and wear pots just like UP, which only served to confuse the student body. UP asked BCs to stop, and they wouldn't. Sparks flew, tempers rose, but UP forged on and built Bonfire that year.

Things flared up again between the groups when BCs attended the Magnolia fire and served as "security" for the event, connecting them with an off-campus Bonfire. The student body didn't know if BCs had merged with UP or if BCs had built Magnolia fire, or none of the above. BCs did nothing to quell the confusion and tempers flared up again. UP forged on and built a Bonfire again that year.

Once again, things flared up a year later when BCs decided to name one of their leadership positions a "Grey pot", which was the same name as the UP (which changed to Student Bonfire that year) head leadership. When BCs was asked to change the name of thier pot, they wouldn't and therefore perpetuated the confusion.

I know nothing of UP/SB vandalizing the BCs trailer. If it was indeed done, it was not in any official or condoned capacity.

Can't we all just get along
A resolution was reached on Texags a while back between the groups where both recognized each other's efforts to bring back Bonfire. (A)SB has perpetuated the activity and the education of "how" to build Bonfire. BCs perpetuates Bonfire awareness, is helping to pave the way for Bonfire's return to campus, and now does their best to remain neutral in any off-campus Bonfire issues.

What must be recognized is that one group could not succeed without the other. The only way to really learn/teach how to build Bonfire is to do it, and BCs can't do that.

In order for (A)SB to grow back to pre-99 attendance, they eventually need to build Bonfire close to or on campus. Only BCs can make that happen. When Bonfire returns to campus, the University will need people who know how to build Bonfire, and the only people around who know how to do that are (A)SB people. Both groups need to remember and recognize this, and do their best to avoid stepping on any toes in the future. It's in the best interest of Bonfire.

-------------------------------------------------------
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, thank a Soldier.

If BCs wants to stay neutral, they mustn’t discourage, and in some cases, prevent their members from attending SB events.

You may choose not to encourage your members, to protect you University affiliation, and that’s understandable.

Also, BCs must ban alcohol from all of its events, as SB does. A former BCs member said that alcohol was involved in building that mini-stack. Also, why hasn't that stack been burnt yet? You would think that their members would want to build a new one every year (even that small). That one is just drying out and rotting away.

I would like to know what traditions BCs thinks SB is missing that Aggie Bonfire had. Please see this thread: http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=682823&forum_id=14

[This message has been edited by Armadillo Jackal (edited 8/31/2006 10:49a).]

Agg05,

Did you ever take a look around the neighborhood that the ministack was kept? Any given day there are 20-30 middle school and elementary aged children running around unsupervised. Children this age love to vandalize things.

Please keep this in mind before BCs needlessly blames SB for anything...unless there is any proof otherwise, in which case things will be dealt with accordingly.

quote:

---

I guess I could enter a further diatribe about the idea that BCS wants to "work" with SB but goes out of their way to discredit them immediately... (see the first post by TXAgg05, and phrases like "RECOGNIZED" and "unlike our predicessors [sic] (KTFB), we have gained an upstanding relationship"...)

---

I guess I need to apologize for the way I phrased this statment.. only only meant to lend our credability as far as working with TAMU admin goes,...we are often confused with SB as as such we try very hard to make the difference as clear as possible...the fact that TAMU admin recognized a Bonfire student Org on campus is a large step towards getting Bonfire back.. and the fact that we have remained is a testament to Dr. Gate's (and other Administrtors') willingness to hear positive arguments for its return post-litigation.

It isn't meant to be a slight to SB but as you all know the isssue of which groups is the most active way to br involved with Bonfire related activities is a constant sorcue of debat an confusion for students - both current anf former. In an ideal situtation BCS would be supported by SB and as such members of BCS could gain a better understand of what SB does.

To underscore why we do this.. I will give the most recurring example of how it become an issue...
new students, especially Fish come into Open House looking for ways to get involved with Bonfire.. naturally they see us and grab an application.. we try and explain to them prior to their posession of one (and subsequent application to BCS that we are not SB "the off-campus Bonfire" and that they make seek out SB's wesite for iunfo on how to get involved with SB..

this leads to a SHARP decilne in new members gaind in recruitment because they often have a preconcieve notion of BCS's "no action" result - perpetuated by many involved in SB... so they instantly have an adversion to even seeing what we do...

PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT I am NOT blaming SB's leaders for this but the continued mis-conception that is perpectuated (especially with new fish) only furhter hinders our ability to clear up this mees of a confusion and the anamosity between the two...

All of our members are told about SB form the start.. so that they can clearly understand that they are not allowed to participate as official reps of BCS (or thier dorms) - as is university policy.. but are not prevented from going...as we cannot control thier "free-time"

quote:

---

All of our members are told about SB form the start.. so that they can clearly understand that they are not allowed to participate as official reps of BCS (or thier dorms) - as is university policy.. but are not prevented from going...as we cannot control thier "free-time"

---

This contradicts my own experience. It's been my understanding that BCs has discouraged participation in SB. While BCs cannot control its members' free time, peer pressure plays a big factor in what people choose to do in their free time.

Most fish get involved in Bonfire to be an active part of "Building the Hell", not to sit in meetings, sift through paperwork, sell shirts and bumper stickers and recruit more members. BCs, sadly, has a tough time getting membership because it is a bureaucratic organization...it has to be to meet its goals. At this point, many incomming students do not know what the big deal is about Bonfire, and do not entirely understand what BCs is moving towards.

This is where SB comes in. While not affiliated with Texas A&M, SB is the pilot light that will allow the complete Bonfire experience to return to campus. When students come out to cut and participate in the labor, unity, and character building experiences that is Bonfire...they get an idea of what they are fighting for.

When you arrive at cut and smell grodes, diesel, bar oil, sawdust, and hear hundreds of axes and hatchets hacking away...it's inspiring. When you see a picture of first cut while looking over cut site on dorm log day...you can see what's been accomplished.

Then comes Centerpole and Stack. The day centerpole gets raised is the first time many people realize how large of a structure they are building. As stack progresses, every time you drive up to it and see Centerpole, followed by first stack, second all appear over a hill you just never want to leave.

This is what will pass on the desire to continue what BCs is doing. It's become very overused, but is still true..."from the outisde looking in you cannot understand it, and from the inside looking out you cannot explain it."

While BCs cannot force its members to participate in SB, it might be a good idea to encourage them to...in no official capacity of course...and even if just one cut and one stack. At the very least, please do not discourage BCs members/prospective members from also joining SB.

quote:

---

BCS worked VERY hard to gain recognition by TAMU administration.. (It took us 2 yrs of lobbying to complet ae process that usually takes less than 2 months for any other student organization) if SB was recgonized- as was the original draft..we were concerned about the potential imapcts upon our ability to work effectievly with TAMU admistration...as it is we often go through cycles of waining support due to Bonfire related events (litigations, etc.) We also have difficulties getting TAMU administrarors to work with us because they think we are SB... and that would also result in several serious problems for TAMU until litigation ends.

I know that might sound selfish or something but I don't know how else to put it.. there were some serious concerns which resulted from the bill and thus potentially could impacts BCS's abiltiy to achieve our goal of getting Bonfire back or to contiue to be a presence on campus.

---

Wich is the fundamental problem behind this. It IS selfish, it IS arrogant, and you are making a nearly 100 year old tradtion the center of a petty game. We work for the same goal, supposedly, yet you insist on countermining us.


As to the falsehoods i mention, perhaps you should educate your members a little more effectivley. I find a majority of your memberships litany to be "we are working to bring back "real" bonfire, not the mess off campus". Between yourselves, and many of the corps outfits(of whom i have a real bone to pick, including one of the batteries whose fish seem to be well indoctrinated to not liking SBA......), you have suceded in doing next to zero education of tradition, but simply turned a huge percentage of the student body against us. Its amazing how concerned you seem to be with "reel" bonfire, yet how lacking your want to teech traditions is.

To sum up my feelings, BCS appears to me as nothing more than a politicized attempt to gain recognition. At this point in time, your biggest claim to fame is being a student orginization (wow.....) and getting the university to sell bonfire merchandise, wich is just revenue for them. Your other, most visible concern is attacking an orginization that has brought bonfire back from a trash pile(wow sound familiar) to a 45foot tall, well built, structuraly sound version of bonfire that im proud to have been a small part of.

The day your orginization stops attempting to be a political creature, stops undermining us, and realises the realities of the bonfire situation as its stand, you will never have my respect. Your fighting a different war, and unfortunatly have fired one to many "friendly" shots.

____________________________________________________________
Proudest member of the Fightin Texas Aggie class of 08 Beat the h*** outa tu A-A-A Whoop!!!. May bonfire forever burn in our hearts.....and may the Twelfth Man ever burn it in memory and in hope for the future.

Band.studentbonfire.com

If Bonfire’s strongest advocates can’t get along with each other, there’s really no hope for resurrecting the tradition as an on-campus event that enjoys the support of the wider Texas A&M community.

Put away old rivalries, learn to trust one another, and be willing to entertain compromise on size, design principles, degree of student participation, etc. Otherwise, continuing the tradition will be a constant struggle fought against the odds.

Continued quibbling within the ranks doesn't help.

Stop fighting with each other. Understand that both organizations have the best interests of the tradition in mind, and that there will always be differences of opinion. Put your prejudices behind you and support others who may approach the strategic goal using different tactics.



[This message has been edited by DualAG (edited 9/1/2006 1:50a).]

Part of the problem comes from misunderstanding a very difficult topic.

Student groups, TAMU employees and any other person or group that is officially affiliated with the University, as part of the moratorium, CANNOT endorse anything like bonfire in their roles with the university. Does it mean that everyone officially affiliated with the university never wants to see bonfire return to campus? No. Do some people choose to distance themselves from the issue in order to avoid a hot button issue that lies in a moral grey area? Yes. Could student groups be disbanded, or employees fired for advocating bonfire in an official way? Absolutely. What is "an official way?" Therein lies the problem.

More people need to realize that if you want bonfire to ever have a chance to be held on campus again, as a result of the moratorium, there needs to be two unrelated groups. SB carries on the tradition off campus. They take steps to find a way to ensure the safety of the student workers. They create a safe design for stack, and prove it. They show that the design is viable from a logistical standpoint (Can it be built in time?) They show by example that cut and stack can be conducted safely. Is there a place for such an organization in the Aggie world? Yes. Can this group be affiliated with the university in any way? No.

This fact creates the need for another type of group. While student bonfire workers keep the flame burning, literally, and improve the process of cut and stack, another group is working within the system. Since they cannot officially advocate off campus bonfire (a necessary group) they take care of the rest. They make sure that the return of bonfire to campus remains on the minds of the administrators. They research bonfire history, and keep record as best they can. When the litigation ends, BCS will play an irreplacable role in bringing bonfire back to campus as swiftly as possible. BCS already has an in with the administrators and is becoming more and more respected every year. Their position in the minds of the administration comes from mutual respect. If BCS were to come out in official support of student bonfire, all the work of the past few years would be lost. You don't infiltrate a system by making trouble. Bonfire is still a sore spot for many people at TAMU, and BCS walks a razor's edge curry favor for their position.

When litigations end, someone will need to play ball with the administration to get bonfire back where it belongs. BCS is positioning themselves to be those people. And honestly,... in my experience SB people absolutely suck at playing ball with authority figures. (Maybe I have a tainted sample, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em) If SB wanted to do more than carry and improve the tradition while it is off campus, they would do very well to reel in their members and get them inline. If SB doesn't want to be looked down on, they need to hold themselves to a higher standard. If the bonfire guys in halls like Walton would take it upon themselves to be upstanding individuals in the community and not just a huge pain in the a$$ for the employees and administration of A&M, membership would rise and there would be so many more people yelling for bonfire to come back. In short, SB needs to learn about image, and how to play the game.

Both groups are needed, but it is next to impossible for the two groups to get along when the basic issues surrounding the need for the scism is so misunderstood.

cliffs: BCS cannot advocate for or condone student bonfire because they would loose all the ground they have made with the administration. SB needs to clean up their image on campus to be taken seriously.

quote:

---

cliffs: BCS cannot advocate for or condone student bonfire because they would lose all the ground they have made with the administration. SB needs to clean up their image on campus to be taken seriously

---

that's pretty much right on the money

Hey! Why single out Walton? Jealous much?

Seriously, though, from my old-fart point of view I think it is most important that these two groups NOT WORK AGAINST EACH OTHER. You don't have to support each other, but do try to communicate with each other. Something as simple as, "Hey, XXXXX group is going to be out at YYYYY location next Saturday from 12 - 4 recruiting people and wearing our pots." By having the two groups communicate and try not to step on each other's toes you guys could remove a lot of the enmity that has grown up between you. That can only help.

Oh, and if Walton's image is as bad as it was '92 - '95 then, yes, you guys should clean up your image.

Wasn't Walton the dorm that was banned from Bonfire one year?

It is a whole lot easier to notice the bad things that get attached to an entire group by the actions of just a few.

While BCS cannot support SB in an official capacity, that doesn't mean they should ignore us, or spread slander about us. Unofficial support from a few of the members of BCS would make the most sense, but then again maybe I'm old enough to be losing my mind.

quote:

---

Wasn't Walton the dorm that was banned from Bonfire one year?

---

Yes, they couldn't participate as a dorm in '99, but loaded as a "group of friends who all wore the same t-shirts and pots."

Their yell that year was "We Load"!

That year, when Squadron 17 (who loaded with Walton) got centerpole, there was a large "W" on the flag atop Bonfire. Good bull.

-------------------------------------------------------
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, thank a Soldier.

What did Walton do to get banned? For that matter, what did they do to get relegated to Load in the first place?

A student-organization hearing concluded Walton Hall was involved in forcing new crew chiefs to hug trees, and abused them with verbal and physical harrassment.
Alcohol also may have been involved.
Ann Marie Morgan, department of student activities advisor, said Walton is restricted from participation in Bonfire because of it's infraction of University hazing policies.
-- from an article by Chris Menczer in The Battalion, September 29, 1999

Walton (thanks to L'il Jim, I think) volunteered to go to LOAD after all of DG (the previous LOAD dorm) was evicted for . . . uh . . . tomfoolery. Once we realized how superior LOAD was to cut we never looked back.

On a side note, I nearly got kicked off cutsite in '99 for wearing a WALTON LOADS t-shirt. I tried to tell the jRP that I was a former student and did not live in Walton. He didn't seem to care, or to like it when I ignored him and continued what I was doing. I could see him standing there, steaming, thinking of what to do next. I always felt bad about that afterwards. I wonder who that dude was.

Burger - that probation was the biggest bunch of BS I'd ever seen. Of all the things to bust a dorm for we got busted for SINGING. It was all thanks to one much hated RA, but it's hard to hold a grudge against him now - he was one of the EMTs working the collapse.

It's funny hearing the "you need to do X to be taken seriously" comment coming from one of the least "taken seriously" groups at A&M.

"Hey! Why single out Walton? Jealous much?

Oh, and if Walton's image is as bad as it was '92 - '95 then, yes, you guys should clean up your image."

I just chose Walton because they are the dorm that I have the most first hand experience with. I was an RA for two years in Walton.

It has gotten a whole lot better in the past 2 years. Its really a shame that in Walton "Student Bonfire Participant" is synnonymous with "dumba$$/pain in the ass."

quote:

---

Its really a shame that in Walton "Student Bonfire Participant" is synnonymous with "dumba$$/pain in the ass."

---

Well, it could be that your tolerance for other people's harmless fun is too low(?). I mean, just because you find something to be a pain in the ass doesn't mean that the person doing it is a dumbass. Just a thought. This is, of course, based on my experience with RAs over the years. Most were worthless and became RAs because they needed to feel important. Not that this is why YOU became an RA, mind you.

Yeah, I still hate authority; and, yeah, I'm bitter a lot.