Gavin wrote:

The Complutensian Polyglot Bible is the name given to the first printed polyglot of the entire Bible...please explain to me how someone who's self given name is a Bible, isn't bringing politics and religion into the discussion?

The word "polyglot" doesn't have to refer to The Complutensian Polyglot Bible, as your own reference above demonstrates ("first printed polyglot"). A polyglot is simply someone or something that has multiple languages. So the poster's use of that term as his username doesn't at all imply a biblical reference.

All human social groups have politics and religion built in, it is how our species is designed. To not "bring politics and religion into the discussion" is to denigh our common humanity.

It is also an important aspect of humanity that we have the ability to focus and hold attention at will. If each of us brought every aspect of ourselves into a discussion, the resulting cacophony would make discussion pointless. We must choose what we're going to focus on in any particular encounter. This doesn't deny our humanity - it allows it to flourish by fostering good communication, which connects us to each other.

If one's political or religious beliefs are relevant to the discussion, then of course they should be included. If the discussion is about why one should or shouldn't be able to delete Meetup groups, that seems a stretch to me.

BobW

We all understand what he was saying. What I was pointing out was that there was no need to bring politics and/or religion into the discussion. I also wanted to point out that I don't think the remarks were appropriate in this forum due to the divisevness of the way he made the statements.

From www.wikipedia.org -

The Complutensian Polyglot Bible is the name given to the first printed polyglot of the entire Bible, planned and financed by Cardinal Cisneros (1436-1517). It includes the first printed editions of the Greek New Testament, the complete Septuagint, and the Targum Onkelos. Of the 600 printed, only 123 are known to have survived to date.

For the full page go here
http://en.wikipedia.o...

All human social groups have politics and religion built in, it is how our species is designed. To not "bring politics and religion into the discussion" is to denigh our common humanity. Yes, it is divisive to point out polygot is operating from false Abrahamic assumptions about the nature of the universe, religion and the way human groups function. But please explain to me how someone who's self given name is a Bible, isn't bringing politics and religion into the discussion?

And no, dear friends, it wasn't an allegory.

Suggested further reading:
Chimpanzee Politics : Power and Sex among Apes by Frans de Waal

If someone has "James" in his screen name, is it religious? After all, there is a King James version of the Bible....

How about "International"? There is a New International Version....

How about "Good"? There is a Good News Bible....

How about "Large"? There are Large Print Bibles....

And the list goes on.....

Those of us that have been around these boards for any length of time know that the member with the user name POLYGLOTT has a passion for learning many different languages and is and has been an Organizer and member of a zillion language groups here on meetup.com and elsewhere.

Trying to link his user name to religion just won't work.

This thread has really strayed .. so let's all try to return to the original topic which was in case any one has forgotton: " We should be able to delete our own groups! Why can't we? ".

Have a great day,
Leah

Thank You Leah,


Ployglot means - 1.speaking or writing several languages 2. containing or made up of several languages.

Yes , There were ployglot bibles. I have some bi-ligual ones. Multi language bibles were important hundreds of years ago to help spead the word I believe.

Now, Since Ive been established as a language group lover. I creator and a member of many groups , thus I am not a meetup or yahoo group terrorist with the intention of going around and deleting groups. I also believe that a good group would just regroup with a new leader and groups with no leaders are probably dead groups.

So, why can't we delete the groups the we create or organizer here at meetup ? We can at Yahoo and there doesn't seem to be any problems. If someone came in an deleted a group that you belonged to then you probably were not interested in it anyway. You or some else who cared would have taken it over. Those that care about the groups that they create don't let them fall into the hands of random deleters !

Now there are good reasons for being able to delete our groups - maybe we made 2 by mistake, maybe it didn't work out, maybe we want to merge with another group, maybe the group members are totally useless and you just want to say screw you, maybe we want to take our creations elsewhere and leave not trail. Whatever the reason we should be albe to delete our groups.

If we wanted to destroy the group we can do it anyway by sending messages and even erasing all the members.

My point here is that meetup wants to be in control . They have to many limits and rules. Limits for messaging , groups, contacting organizers, ect...

As far as the groups , it is meetup's plan to appear bigger than they really are because nobody can delte groups thus more are created than are actually use. this is why they never deleted the non-paying groups. Then they would would be 1/100th of the size that they appear to be now. At least it would be accurate !



Sincerely,

John D

Leah said:

This thread has really strayed .. so let's all try to return to the original topic which was in case any one has forgotton: " We should be able to delete our own groups! Why can't we? ".

I think that who can delete a group depends on who "owns" a group. Maybe we should try to answer that question first?

• Does the current organizer own the group, and can do what they want with it? Many of Meetup's features for organizers seem to say so: you can delete messages and members. And, you're responsible for paying for the group. If so, Polyglott is right, and we should all have the right to delete, split, merge groups we organize.
  
  
• Do the members of a group "own" it? Right now, that's what Meetup says is holding back an auto-merge process: member consent. If so, then the organizer should have to consult them before deleting a group, and even after a group migrates to another service, the members who didn't move should get to keep meeting.
  
  
• Does Meetup itself own all the groups? That's how it works now: you have to message someone at Meetup to delete a group. They also control the topics. If so, then no, organizers should not be able to remove groups.
  

So, what do you think? Who owns a group?

BobW

Good Points Bob ! I totally agree with you !

Now, we can create any group on a whim. They are not creating anything.

They are our ideas, and organizers do pay for the ability to organize or create a group.

We organize our ideas, our beliefs, and find the members. We meet at places that we pick.

One way or another the body of the group is ours. The ideas & beliefs could be considered intelectual property.

Our intelectual property.

Now, what would be in it for meetup not to allow us to delete groups ? We can leave. Everyone in the group can leave.
The organizer can remove all the members on by one. So what is the difference ?

The difference is even if the group is filled with brain dead members who never show up to meeting or even if the group title stays on the meetup universe they appear bigger than they really are.

This is why we can't delete groups. They want us to make groups and even if everyone left the name and place would still be there for new people to enter. We are doing the work for them.

This is why there will never be a purge or cleanup of unused or non paying groups.

They threatened it , but too many organizers left.

It was a scare tactic right from the very beginning .

Remember my points;

Good groups have organizers. Nobody in a good group would leave it organizerless .

Dead groups don't have organizers. Any group with no organizer has already moved to yahoo or somewhere else.
Or, the previous organizer could not motivate anyone so he or she just gave up and stepped down.

It would serve no good purpose as a meetup disliker to enter a group , take it over and delete it.
The group would just re-group if it was a good one in the first place and probably be stronger than before.

If it were a dead group it actually might revive the idea by deleting it because people will create another one when needed.
Kind of like when the forest burns down and new tree and plants grow.


We should be able to delete groups just like yahoo and it would be good for meetup also. All things have to get rid of the deadness to rejuvinate.

But in my opinion they are control freaks who want to collect dead groups to mislead thier actual size.

Well meetup, why can't we delete our groups ? How come we never could delete our groups ? This goes way before the fees issue.
What are you afraid of ? a wide spead deletion of the stagnant universe that you have here ?

Sincerely,

John D

You can delete a group. Simply ask all your members to leave, or remove them, then send an email to meetup.com asking them to delete your group.

I did it just a few weeks ago when combining two groups. Maybe you need to have a good reason though. Which I am not saying you do or dont have.

Sunnie - Trying to stay on topic.
Mothers Inc.
Organizer

P.S. I also sent out an email to all the members of the group telling them what was going on.

That's not a delete button. Why should it depend on the permission of meetup ? Why idoes it have to be so difficult ?

Because they don't want us to delete any groups.

That's not a delete button. Why should it depend on the permission of meetup ? Why idoes it have to be so difficult ?

Because they don't want us to delete any groups.

OK, I'll toss this into the mix.

As we've seen in the past 3 months, there are a few people who would like nothing more than to cause Meetup.com as many problems as possible. Imagine, if you will, if those ill-wishers could become organizers of groups and delete them at will. Not a pretty picture and a reason to disallow Organizer-deletable groups.

Additionally, while the Organizer usually does the 'heavy lifting' for the group, the group consists of people other than the Org. Does the Organizer have the right, ethically or otherwise, to delete a group even if the rest of the membership wants to keep it going? If the Organizer is disaffected for whatever reason (say s/he doesn't like color of the other members' shoes), does that give the Org the right to delete the group?

Mind you, these are just points for discussion and nothing more.

Now, as far as saying that those who do not step up as Organizers don't care about the groups, that's just plain wrong. There are a variety of reasons for not stepping up, not the least of which is an inability to pay $19/mo. Heck, that's a week's food for me (underemployed and living pretty much hand-to-mouth).

Also, not everyone is cut out to act as treasurer/dues collector for meetings. I know for a fact, from hard experience that I am not and I freely admit it. That does not mean that I do not care about the groups I belong to.

Finally, there are a bunch of folks who enjoy meetings and regularly participate, but don't have the time, temperment, or skills to be an Organizer. That most certainly does not mean that they don't care about the group. Nor does it mean that they'd want the group deleted by an Org who doesn't want to pay the bill any more.

Again, IMHO & YMMV
Steve P

That's not a delete button. Why should it depend on the permission of meetup ? Why idoes it have to be so difficult ?

Because they don't want us to delete any groups.

OK, I'll toss this into the mix.

As we've seen in the past 3 months, there are a few people who would like nothing more than to cause Meetup.com as many problems as possible. Imagine, if you will, if those ill-wishers could become organizers of groups and delete them at will. Not a pretty picture and a reason to disallow Organizer-deletable groups.

Additionally, while the Organizer usually does the 'heavy lifting' for the group, the group consists of people other than the Org. Does the Organizer have the right, ethically or otherwise, to delete a group even if the rest of the membership wants to keep it going? If the Organizer is disaffected for whatever reason (say s/he doesn't like color of the other members' shoes), does that give the Org the right to delete the group?

Mind you, these are just points for discussion and nothing more.

Now, as far as saying that those who do not step up as Organizers don't care about the groups, that's just plain wrong. There are a variety of reasons for not stepping up, not the least of which is an inability to pay $19/mo. Heck, that's a week's food for me (underemployed and living pretty much hand-to-mouth).

Also, not everyone is cut out to act as treasurer/dues collector for meetings. I know for a fact, from hard experience that I am not and I freely admit it. That does not mean that I do not care about the groups I belong to.

Finally, there are a bunch of folks who enjoy meetings and regularly participate, but don't have the time, temperment, or skills to be an Organizer. That most certainly does not mean that they don't care about the group. Nor does it mean that they'd want the group deleted by an Org who doesn't want to pay the bill any more.

Again, IMHO & YMMV
Steve P

Steve,

Thanks for bringing these points out very well. We all know that there are those who would do anything they could to damage Meetup. That seems a good enough reason for me not to give the ability to delete groups wholesale to all organizers. There have been a number of organizers who changed the name of the group to reflect foreign countries in order to cause disruption. Others who signed up in order to trash the boards and members. Sometimes rules have to be made to protect people because of a few bad apples. I think this is one of them.