Tommy Ivey is holds an executive pot position in BCS and is a member of both the "Pro Real Aggie Bonfire" and "Student bonfire isn't Aggie Bonfire." on facebook.

I am currently on Student Senate and I will personally tell you that in the Open Forum section in which two BCS officers and one unofficially, yet still wore her BCS polo (Ms. Tommi Ivey), very strongly spoke against Student Bonfire (Anti-SB rhetoric). I found that their demeanor was one of complete opposition to "an organization [ASB] that is potentially jeopardizing the return of Aggie Bonfire to campus through their actions" and "an organization what perpetuates the stereotypes and unsafe activities that existed in pre-'99 Aggie Bonfire" (both quotes are directly from Ms. Tommi Ivey's speech to the Student Senate) This is exactly an ANTI-SB sentiment.

When encountered later by a Student Senator in private conversation off the senate floor on which exact "unsafe activities" were perpetuated, she had no reply as she did not know the exact workings of ASB.

At the core, I strongly believe in BCS and its efforts to raise money for the Memorial Library, help in the lift of the Bonfire merchandise moratorium, and ultimate goal of return of Bonfire to campus, and I understand the difficulty of extensive action being taken while litigation rolls on, but I cannot condone its complete lack of interest (even concrete wall if you will), as "the only official, University recognized Bonfire organization," in listening to a group of Aggies (old and current) that feel so strongly about Bonfire that they continue the tradition in a very difficult year-long ordeal requiring massive amounts of man-hours and extensive funding. I feel as though a joint-effort, even on an unofficial level (a meeting of the minds if you will) just to talk about some issues each other might have about one another will absolutely alleviate tension and heated controversy on what to do when the litigation ends. It just makes sense that on an unofficial level, that focusing on the mutual aims of two very different Bonfire organizations only strengthens the progression and action of those mutual aims.

In closing, I am a uniter, not a divider.

There's a reason why the founders of BC want nothing to do with the current organization.

When I served on BC's (not BCS's) board of directors during the first few years, we had a policy not to utter any public comment, neither pro, con, nor ambivalent in nature, regarding any student-led off-campus bonfire organization.

To add humor to the Facebook angle, last year their facebook group had "Grey Pot" listed for the head of their leadership.

Didn't she say she had been to Bonfire several times (I thought I read 12), and is the alleged campus expert, yet can't get the Pre-'99 pot structure right?

BCS is a total joke, and as Keegan said, not at all what the founders of it envisioned. I remember visiting multiple times for hours on end with one of the founders outside of Olsen Field during the Spring of '01, and what that group does today is not even remotely close to their ideas.

I don't think anyone in SB has a real problem with BCS except that they seem to have a problem with us. They should go back to the stance that DualAg was mentioning and just not talk about us. When people ask their opinion of ASB they should give the honest answer which is that they don't know anything about it.