See:
http://argus-press.com/news/community/owosso/article_9c81999c-0a1e-11e1-b21c-001cc4c03286.html (http://argus-press.com/news/community/owosso/article_9c81999c-0a1e-11e1-b21c-001cc4c03286.html)
Is that the right terminology or should it be "former" National Commander :-\
RM
Dunno...Maybe if she "retired" her membership it might be appropriate. If she is still an active member I would think either "Former" or "Past" National Commander would be okay. It just seems to be a minor editorial note to the community bulletin. Nothing to get twisted up about.
Since she is listed as a member of a MIWG unit, not MI-000, 001, or 999, she's not retired.
National Commanders and their spouses are givem Life Memberships upon completion of their term. She would normally be assigned to the "National Commander's unit under National Headquarters.
Well, she isn't. I just looked her up, again, and she's assigned to a MIWG unit in Washtenaw County.
Why is this even a conversation?
Good question. I guess I didn't look closely at the OP's identity.
In that case: (http://members.cox.net/xanadu99/CAP/Clock_ticking_away.gif)
This is easily in the top 5 most worthless threads ever posted.
The idea that the press would use the wrong term.....shocking!
Quote from: lordmonar on November 15, 2011, 02:03:49 AM
The idea that the press would use the wrong term.....shocking!
"Shocking... positively shocking." (James Bond to Bonita (the dancer) as he walks out the room after electrocuting Capungo in the pre-credits of
Goldfinger.) ;D