Talk:Philolexian Society - Revision history

Absentminded at 02:14, 12 April 2007

2007-04-12T02:14:32Z

2007-04-12T01:39:43Z

2007-04-12T01:28:19Z

2007-04-12T01:27:31Z

2007-04-12T00:53:08Z

New page: Is it really appropriate to call it "one of the oldest" when it's current incarnation was started only twenty years ago?

New page

Is it really appropriate to call it "one of the oldest" when it's current incarnation was started only twenty years ago?

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:14, 12 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Is it really appropriate to call it "one of the oldest" when its current incarnation was started only twenty years ago? --- comment left by [[User:WhatYouKnowAboutThat\|WhatYouKnowAboutThat]]		Is it really appropriate to call it "one of the oldest" when its current incarnation was started only twenty years ago? --- comment left by [[User:WhatYouKnowAboutThat\|WhatYouKnowAboutThat]]
	:* Is it really appropriate to posit Columbia as being 253 years old, when 1) it did not exist between 1776-1784, and 2) its present form was not chartered until 1787? [[User:Ttan\|Ttan]] 21:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)		:* Is it really appropriate to posit Columbia as being 253 years old, when 1) it did not exist between 1776-1784, and 2) its present form was not chartered until 1787? [[User:Ttan\|Ttan]] 21:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
		+	:*Dirty Secret: The Varsity Show? Not really 113 years old. They kinda skipped a couple of decades. Kingsmen? Went off to form legendary group [[Sha Na Na]] in the 60's. The group itself wasn't reformed until the 80's. Columbia's "Oldest Tradition" is reviving traditions in the 80's. There's more where that came from. And lastly, the older alumni recognize the reconvened society as a continuation of the same organization. [[User:Absentminded\|Absentminded]] 22:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 12 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Is it really appropriate to call it "one of the oldest" when ~~it's~~ current incarnation was started only twenty years ago?	+	Is it really appropriate to call it "one of the oldest" when its current incarnation was started only twenty years ago? --- comment left by [[User:WhatYouKnowAboutThat\|WhatYouKnowAboutThat]]
	:* Is it really appropriate to posit Columbia as being 253 years old, when 1) it did not exist between 1776-1784, and 2) its present form was not chartered until 1787? [[User:Ttan\|Ttan]] 21:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)		:* Is it really appropriate to posit Columbia as being 253 years old, when 1) it did not exist between 1776-1784, and 2) its present form was not chartered until 1787? [[User:Ttan\|Ttan]] 21:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:28, 12 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Is it really appropriate to call it "one of the oldest" when it's current incarnation was started only twenty years ago?		Is it really appropriate to call it "one of the oldest" when it's current incarnation was started only twenty years ago?
−	:* Is it really appropriate to posit Columbia as being 253 years old, when 1) it did not exist between 1776-1784, and 2) its present form was not chartered until 1787?	+	:* Is it really appropriate to posit Columbia as being 253 years old, when 1) it did not exist between 1776-1784, and 2) its present form was not chartered until 1787? [[User:Ttan\|Ttan]] 21:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:27, 12 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Is it really appropriate to call it "one of the oldest" when it's current incarnation was started only twenty years ago?		Is it really appropriate to call it "one of the oldest" when it's current incarnation was started only twenty years ago?
		+	:* Is it really appropriate to posit Columbia as being 253 years old, when 1) it did not exist between 1776-1784, and 2) its present form was not chartered until 1787?