Tue 9 Oct 2007
Several new additions have been made to the Paresky Center: A label, to the right side of the front, and Adirondack chairs on Baxter Lawn. Pictured on the balcony may be the trustees — I know they were in town and I saw them having a reception just inside the balcony the previous evening. (Those who can recognize trustees can click for the large version and tell us.) I visited over Reading Period, so many students were off campus and were not out on the lawn on this Saturday afternoon.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:53 am
They’re a little too far away to be sure but I don’t recognize any trustees off the bat.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
And an entry’s banner hanging all weekend below the American flag on the new flagpole…
October 9th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
“And an entry’s banner hanging all weekend below the American flag on the new flagpole…”
What fun! Is this a prank by another entry, or a symbol of the banner’s owners’ belief that their own entry dominates? Either way, I just love enthusiastic frosh.
Maybe they could hang ALL the entry banners from the Paresky balcony for a day or two during Homecoming.
October 9th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Yes, get Campus Life staff right on gathering up all the froshie banners for a loan exhibition, with covenants that o one will steal anyone else’s banner. It would give them something unifying to be doing. And some of the banners are so creative.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Those are not trustees. This blog’s assumption that they are is, as usual, off base. They weren’t there the night before either.
Trustee meetings end midday Saturday. Going by David Kane’s logic, they must have blown tons of carbon waste onto the North Adams airport by the time this picture was taken.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Hmmm, interesting allegation. First, my post above said that (emphasis added)
Therefore, it was not an assumption so much as a suggestion, open to refutation.
Let’s look at the logic on the assumption that the trustees were the group meeting there the previous night:
Fact 1: On Friday night I saw a group of important-looking people having a meeting just inside the balcony. There were a bunch of old men, a few middle-aged women, a free open bar with ample wine, and a reasonably elegant hors d’oeurves spread. Everyone was very well dressed.
Fact 2: The trustees were in town.
Thus, I made the reasonable conclusion, open to refutation, that the group was the trustees. Never having laid eyes on them myself, I asked those who have to provide the last word.
You, anonymous commentator without so much as a pseudonym — perhaps you can tell us who that elegant group was on Friday night, and perhaps you can identify the ones on the balcony in the picture as well!
This is hardly grounds for your scathing comment, “This blog’s assumption that they are is, as usual, off base.”
Also, you are using “off base” as a compound modifier and, as such, it should be hypenated.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Diana: While I thoroughly enjoy your photos, your tone in posts often comes off as rather pretentious and, for lack of a better term, snooty-snotty. In real (non-blog) life, I doubt that you are as such; however, I would warn that you come off this way to at least one regular reader. I recall with great embarrassment, many moons ago, a co-worker confronting me about my “tone” in emails. It was, of course, unintentional — the written word has a way of conveying undesired subtext. I suspect that this is true in your case as well. Please take this for what it is worth, and learn from my mistake.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
“They weren’t there the night before either.”
Maybe anon @ 9:35 was among that august group, and knows for a fact that they were somewhere more tony than Paresky on the night in question. It would be helpful were he or she to be more explicit or specific (rather than just scathing).
October 10th, 2007 at 3:43 am
Diana is just fine the way sbe is - both from an e-mail writing standpoint and also otherwise.
October 10th, 2007 at 8:30 am
If Diana comes off as pretentious, then god save the rest of us regular posters!
October 10th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Thanks, Frank.
Betty, your point is well taken. However, I have to walk a line between wanting the world to see me as wonderful and sweet and lovely, and letting people insult me with sentences such as “This blog’s assumption that they are is, as usual, off base.” When I have the facts on my side and the rigor of logic behind me, it is delicious fun to refute such insults. (Much of the time, I let others come to bat for me instead of defending myself.) If the anonymous commentator who wrote that angry post had owned up to his or her words, most likely you would have thought him or her more deserving of your advice than I.
October 10th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Nope, not pretentious at all.
October 12th, 2007 at 6:51 am
Article in NYT about misperceptions caused by “tone” of electronic communication.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/jobs/07pre.html?em&ex=1192334400&en=23d502347c62baf6&ei=5087%0A
I know I struggle with this, and often mess it up with people who are real life strangers or near stangers.