Re: [AGA-mcm] Re: AGA Convention info

["S. Hieber" <shieber@yahoo.com>]

How odd that they thought referring to them as "babes" was
somehow better than B.I.T.C.H. Each has its derogatory
emphasis in the vernacular.





--- Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Karen Randall wrote:
> 
> > B.I.T.C.H.
> >
> > And, yes, it's for real. (to give you a hint, if
> Kathy's not a member, she 
> > could be, and you know I wouldn't call her names ;-)
> 
> She is, sort of.  They indoctrinated her at the 1996
> convention when she 
> went on her own.  She didn't like the cliquish nature of
> B.I.T.C.H. 
> though, so has never completely participated.
> 
> B.I.T.C.H. got in a bit of a tangle with ACA management,
> because they 
> bring in so much money for the conservation funds.  But
> some are skittish 
> about thanking and referring to them as "B.I.T.C.H." in
> publication, so 
> there was a whole proposal to the board (and subsequent
> week-long 
> discussion -- you think ours are bad!) about how they
> should be referred 
> to as "the Babes".  To which, management of B.I.T.C.H.
> was so ticked that 
> they threatened to cut all ties with the ACA and help
> support a catfish 
> club.
> 
>    - Eri
> -- 
> Erik Olson
> erik at thekrib dot com
> _______________________________________________
> AGA-mcm mailing list
> AGA-mcm@thekrib.com
> http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-mcm
> 

_______________________________________________
AGA-mcm mailing list
AGA-mcm@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-mcm