Trinity news, coca cola, and random blitherings

Spectator#1

I've a couple of problems with the Trinity News.

1. The full-page ad for Coca Cola in Issue 1.

Is there not a Student Union mandate, as voted by Trinity's students, against the distribution of Coca Cola in Trinity? Even if the paper isn't funded by the Union at all - I'm not sure if it is - the fact that they ran that ad, especially such an obnoxiously large one, is a little disrespectful of the wishes of the students that they are supposedly representing.

2. The Irish page is gone and replaced by a very sparse, random smattering of Irish articles throughout the paper. I think this is a bad idea. The people who don't speak Irish in Trinity (far outweighing those who do I would think) will continue to skip the Irish articles whereas now those who do speak Irish and who want to read those articles have to go looking for them.

That's not to mention the fact that the amount of Irish articles in the paper would be greater if there was a whole page devoted to it. It seems to me that getting rid of the page is a thinly veiled excuse to phase Irish out altogether in TN.

3. That interview with the Immediate in Issue 2's TNT was embarrassing.

Boston

Spectator#1 wrote:

I've a couple of problems with the Trinity News.

1. The full-page ad for Coca Cola in Issue 1.

Is there not a Student Union mandate against the distribution of Coca Cola in Trinity? Even if the paper isn't funded by the Union at all - I'm not sure if it is - the fact that they ran that ad, especially such an obnoxiously large one, is a little disrespectful of the wishes of the students that they are supposedly representing.

You really think the majority of students care about the coca cola ban?

Spectator#1

Spectator#1 wrote:

I've a couple of problems with the Trinity News.

1. The full-page ad for Coca Cola in Issue 1.

Is there not a Student Union mandate, as voted by Trinity's students, against the distribution of Coca Cola in Trinity? Even if the paper isn't funded by the Union at all - I'm not sure if it is - the fact that they ran that ad, especially such an obnoxiously large one, is a little disrespectful of the wishes of the students that they are supposedly representing.

Trinity News is funded by a grant given to DU Publications through the Capitation Committee. The SU is another capitated body which receives money from the Capitation Committee. So the two don't have anything directly to do with each other. The SU does, however, run a rival paper called the University Record.

The mandate was against the sale of coca-cola products in the SU shops, which has been fulfilled. An argument could be put forward about the spirit of the motion, but in essence there's nothing stopping any publication, society, club, professor, lecturer, department, school, faculty, cluster, academy, college, university or random joe getting sponsorship from Coca-Cola.

And that's all I've to comment on.

Spectator#1

LiouVille wrote:

You really think the majority of students care about the coca cola ban?

My opinion doesn't matter. The only hard evidence we have to go on in guaging the student opinion is the majority vote against Coca Cola being sold in SU shops in Trinity. All students were asked to vote, those who didn't did so by choice.

I think it would be presumptuous to try to ignore that mandate because you think a greater majority don't care. Those people didn't vote either way, they don't hold opinions on the matter, weren't counted in the vote and so shouldn't come into consideration on that particular issue. You can't dismiss the results of a vote because some people don't turn up!

Myth wrote:

The mandate was against the sale of coca-cola products in the SU shops, which has been fulfilled. An argument could be put forward about the spirit of the motion, but in essence there's nothing stopping any publication, society, club, professor, lecturer, department, school, faculty, cluster, academy, college, university or random joe getting sponsorship from Coca-Cola.

And it's on the basis of the spirit of the motion that my objection lies. There is no legally binding mandate there to stop TN from getting sponsorship from Coca Cola. However, as a newspaper which is supposedly there for the students of TCD, to run a full page advertisement for a product that they have already stated they don't want in their shops is an act of derision, it's basically goading the students.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the decision to run that ad was based on some kind of half-baked idea about creating a fuss and getting people talking about the Trinity News. It's quite clear that's what the ethos is behind the agent.

I think other students should consider just how derisive putting that ad in was of them as well, regardless of their position on the Coke ban.

Nietzschean

Spectator#1 wrote:

I think it would be presumptuous to try to ignore that mandate because you think a greater majority don't care.

The mandate only applies to SU shops, where a huge number of us rarely if ever goto(i've entered an SU shop once in the past 2 years i'd say, could even be 3 years...). Its presumptious to assume our not giving a crap about an SU vote on what they want to stock in their shops accurately reflects our overall opinion on buying coke products or Coke sponsorship of entities within college.

they don't hold opinions on the matter

Where you pulling that one from? a large portion of students don't give to ****s about what the SU does or doesn't do, they may on the otherhand have opinions regarding coke but really don't care about voting in an SU thing. Your presuming an SU vote is an accurate reflection on opinon within the college, which by voter turn out it clearly isn't.

You can't dismiss the results of a vote because some people don't turn up!

He didn't dismiss the vote, he just quite rightly pointed out alot of us just don't care.

And it's on the basis of the spirit of the motion that my objection lies. There is no legally binding mandate there to stop TN from getting sponsorship from Coca Cola. However, as a newspaper which is supposedly there for the students of TCD, to run a full page advertisement for a product that they have already stated they don't want in their shops is an act of derision, it's basically goading the students.

Huh what now? as i've pointed out there is no basis for that at all, the SU's vote didn't say they would/should actively discourage other student bodies from being coke sponsored. There is no onus on TN to follow a non existing mandate from a body which has no influence over it. Frankly it would just be plain silly to turn down the funding.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the decision to run that ad was based on some kind of half-baked idea about creating a fuss and getting people talking about the Trinity News.

You seem to be the only one who brought it up , or even cares. So no i can't see TN having agreed to it for some publicity...

I think other students should consider just how derisive putting that ad in was of them as well, regardless of their position on the Coke ban.

Er what now?

Stargal

Spectator#1 wrote:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the decision to run that ad was based on some kind of half-baked idea about creating a fuss and getting people talking about the Trinity News.

It wasn't, but it's sweet that you think that there are so many companies falling over themselves to throw money at the paper that the editor can pick and choose which ones he wants.

Time Magazine

stargal wrote:

It wasn't, but it's sweet that you think that there are so many companies falling over themselves to throw money at the paper that the editor can pick and choose which ones he wants.

Finger, button. Had TN not taken the funding it would struggle to afford this issue; or had it made a loss this issue and paid for it through its grant, would struggle to afford its last issue.

And anyway the Coke mandate is pretty much outdated at this stage. The mandate makes reference to "Due to on-going concerns about trade-union situation in Colombia.." (rough quote). These concerns have, as of now, pretty much dissipated. Wouldn't that nullify the mandate?

Ibid

Ibid wrote:

And anyway the Coke mandate is pretty much outdated at this stage. The mandate makes reference to "Due to on-going concerns about trade-union situation in Colombia.." (rough quote). These concerns have, as of now, pretty much dissipated. Wouldn't that nullify the mandate?

(From memory) "due to the present situation in Columbia". It's even more ambiguous - it doesn't even mention anything to do with trade unions! If you wish, pop off an e-mail to the Electoral Commission at ec@tcdsu.org in relation to this.

Schparkle

The two Irish language articles that randomly appear in TN issue no.2 look extremely out of place. Perhaps if there was an equal amount of English language & Irish language articles throughout the paper, this would look ok. But this is not the case nor is it likely to be.

I agree with Spectator#1 Irish language articles would look more appropriate on an Irish language page (where people who wish to read them can find them) TN is an Irish newspaper but it is not a bilingual paper.

Also the interveiw with The Immediate was embarrassing. There was so much wrong with it I don't even know where to start. Maybe if someone with experience in music journalism or who was even vaguely familiar with the band and their music would have been more suitable for the job. I actually cannot believe that it was printed - it is that bad.


I bet Spectator 1 is a ride.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

The first issue of University Record had a full page ad for 'legal highs'. Hardly seems that a coca-cola ad compares really.

Time Magazine

Schparkle wrote:

The two Irish language articles that randomly appear in TN issue no.2 look extremely out of place. Perhaps if there was an equal amount of English language & Irish language articles throughout the paper, this would look ok. But this is not the case nor is it likely to be.

Nor should it be, it should of course be primarily in Enlgish. I don't have a problem with Irish language articles thrown about randomly. We're all bright people who did well in Leaving Cert, we can all make a stab at understanding the content. I don't see the need for an Irish page (as distinct from wanting an Irish page) because I don't think there's any problem with them being dispersed.

I bet Spectator 1 is a ride.

:rolleyes:. I bet you know/are Spectator #1.

Crash

For the record, anyone found posting under a psuedonym in an attempt to attack an opposing publication will be banned, TN or UR. you have been warned.

Spectator#1

Nietzschean wrote:

The mandate only applies to SU shops, where a huge number of us rarely if ever goto(i've entered an SU shop once in the past 2 years i'd say, could even be 3 years...). Its presumptious to assume our not giving a crap about an SU vote on what they want to stock in their shops accurately reflects our overall opinion on buying coke products or Coke sponsorship of entities within college.

Where you pulling that one from? a large portion of students don't give to ****s about what the SU does or doesn't do, they may on the otherhand have opinions regarding coke but really don't care about voting in an SU thing. Your presuming an SU vote is an accurate reflection on opinon within the college, which by voter turn out it clearly isn't.

Nietzschean, you would have saved both of us a lot of time writing that post if you'd been more attentive to the thread before you posted. Most of your post repeats material already covered by others, more eloquently and concisely I might add, on this thread and I have already responded to those people.

I understand that a lot of students in Trinity (as in any college these days) don't really care about the SU, about what Coca Cola do in another country and/or about voting (in general and in Trinity). Apathy, you could say, is the defining feature of our generation.

I have no doubts that the overwhelming majority of students in Trinity are largely ignorant about the coke ban; if they aren't then the chances are they just couldn't care less about it. On that point we are actually in agreement.

Now, as we all know, there was a vote two years ago, in which we are told that a majority of 1,816 students voted to boycott Coca Cola from SU shops. 1,680 voted against the motion.

Yes, that makes a grand total of 3,496 voters out of a college with a rough population of 15,500, a pitiable amount by anyone's standards. However, you cannot claim that the other 12,000 or so deserve to be considered in any discussion on the matter because they didn't vote.

If you had the results of a survey conducted in Trinity entitled "Do you as a person support the endorsement of Coca Cola products?" and it took the opinions of more that 3,500 people; only then would you be in a position to argue that Trinity News weren't sneering at the mandate in place on-campus by allowing Coke a full-page advertisement in their paper.

You don't have those kind of figures though do you? No. What you're doing here is setting your personal estimate of the general opinion of Trinity students against an official survey of the opinions of the students. What's the point in having votes if people who didn't bother voting can validly claim that their views aren't being considered?

You could claim - and you do - that they do endorse Coca Cola but just didn't care about whether the SU shop stocked it or not because they don't frequent those shops and so didn't vote. I don't think this is a valid or a relevant claim. Those people had the opportunity to vote and they didn't. If they had an opinion at all on the matter, they would have voted, they didn't vote.

However, the fact that 12,000 people didn't vote can only suggest they don't care either way. The people who do care, and came out to vote, and expressed their opinions, voted against the endorsement of Coke products on campus in any shop that they have control over. So, if we look at that again, the only official guaging of student opinion in Trinity tells us that the majority of Trinity students who cared enough to vote don't want Coca Cola endorsed on campus.

Granted, they don't have control over anything but the SU shops and so there is no-one to legally prevent BESS from allowing Coke to sponsor two lecturers or from TN from running a full-page ad in their paper. I still think it is a derisive and an inconsiderate gesture on both of those parties behalfs.

Nietzschean wrote:

He didn't dismiss the vote, he just quite rightly pointed out alot of us just don't care.

Actually, he didn't point anything out at all. See for yourself:

LiouVille wrote:

You really think the majority of students care about the coca cola ban?

That, I'm sure you agree, is a question.

Nietzschean wrote:

Huh what now? as i've pointed out there is no basis for that at all, the SU's vote didn't say they would/should actively discourage other student bodies from being coke sponsored. There is no onus on TN to follow a non existing mandate from a body which has no influence over it. Frankly it would just be plain silly to turn down the funding.

I always find it puzzling to see people write words like 'er' and 'huh' on forums when they are trying to make a point, why did you bother?

I've already stated this in previous posts, you must have skimmed over them pretty quickly before you replied to me. I understand there is no feasible onus on TN to respect the boycott. I've also already made it clear that the fact that they didn't - which would have been a sign of solidarity with the students that voted for it - is, in my own opinion, an act of derision towards those people.

Nietzschean wrote:

You seem to be the only one who brought it up , or even cares. So no i can't see TN having agreed to it for some publicity...

True, I am the only one who brought it up here. I know a few others who feel the same as me. There are possibly others. It could have been for the money too, I'd say Coke paid a hefty sum to get an ad in a paper published in a college that they can't sell their products in. I still think it was a spineless, inconsiderate and disrespectful decision by the editorial staff at TN and one that deserves only scorn from the student body in Trinity, regardless of their own personal stance on the Coke issue.

Er what now?

Ummm, I don't know. What was your, er, problem with the sentence, like?

stargal wrote:

It wasn't, but it's sweet that you think that there are so many companies falling over themselves to throw money at the paper that the editor can pick and choose which ones he wants.

I don't, but it's sweet that you are so incapable of/didn't bother reading what I wrote properly that you think I was complimenting the paper that I clearly think is a bit of a rag!

Ibid wrote:

Nor should it be, it should of course be primarily in Enlgish. I don't have a problem with Irish language articles thrown about randomly. We're all bright people who did well in Leaving Cert, we can all make a stab at understanding the content. I don't see the need for an Irish page (as distinct from wanting an Irish page) because I don't think there's any problem with them being dispersed.

I definitely disagree with you on one point: personally I'm diabolical at Irish so I wouldn't be able to make a stab at those articles at all!

I just think that most people won't bother with the Irish articles and the one's that do want to read them would be better provided for if they were all on the one page. I'm basing this on discussions with friends of mine who do speak Irish, I'm not a crank!

The other point I made still stands anyway, there'd probably be more articles in Irish if they just got the page to themselves. Colleges around Ireland (UCD and ITT for definite anyway) are starting to play down the importance of Irish despite the fact that there is still a demand for it. I think TN should continue to publish an Irish page and not demote it to sparse and random smatterings throughout the paper because there are plenty enough people in Trinity who would still appreciate it.

Ibid wrote:

I bet you know/are Spectator #1.

It wasn't me anyway. I hope Schparkle is a ride though too! Oh, and female...

&#231 wrote: »

For the record, anyone found posting under a psuedonym in an attempt to attack an opposing publication will be banned, TN or UR. you have been warned.

Feel free to check my IP. I'll give you all my details if you want, I've no affiliations to any publication, society or club in Trinity! At the same time, I don't think it would be fair to ban people for voicing their own opinion, even if they were with another paper, once they're not making stuff up!

Spectator#1

Ibid wrote:

Finger, button. Had TN not taken the funding it would struggle to afford this issue; or had it made a loss this issue and paid for it through its grant, would struggle to afford its last issue.

And anyway the Coke mandate is pretty much outdated at this stage. The mandate makes reference to "Due to on-going concerns about trade-union situation in Colombia.." (rough quote). These concerns have, as of now, pretty much dissipated. Wouldn't that nullify the mandate?

Sorry Ibid, I just saw this post on page 1 there. What did you mean by "finger, button"?

The funding issue makes the fact that they ran the ad more understandable, I still think it was unnecessary though. I'm sure there's plenty of other less controversial organisations/companies who would be happy to take an ad out in a college publication. I'm sure it occurred to them that it would cause some sort of a reaction.

I don't know how you mean the issue has dissipated though. As far as I know, and I could be wrong so please correct me if I am, Coke's involvement/lack of involvement in the events that happened in the plant a few years ago is still a hotly contested topic over in Columbia and everywhere else too. I don't think it's all over anyway. Where did you hear that?

If it was all settled over there then I'd agree that it was outdated but another referendum would probably be required to officially over-ride the one from 2004 in order to change the SU policy.

Boston

I love the way you try to make out that just because a handfull of students voted against coke, it represents the whole student bodies opinion on the matter. The overwhelming majority didn't care enough about this crap to vote, therefore they are unlikely to give a crap about some add, stop pretending.

People like you who claim to speak for the student body really annoy me, when it truth you only speak for your on agenda and are will to twist anything you want to suit that agenda.

Spectator#1

LiouVille wrote:

I love the way you try to make out that just because a handfull of students voted against coke, it represents the whole student bodies opinion on the matter. The overwhelming majority didn't care enough about this crap to vote, therefore they are unlikely to give a crap about some add, stop pretending.

You clearly don't love anything about what I'm saying. In fact I'm guessing you're quite annoyed and/or flustered because your spelling is rather messy, you're cursing, and you continue to mistake me simply stating my opinion for an attempt at some sort of coup in Trinity.

I'm not pretending, I've already conceded that most students may not care. I just think that it would be silly to ignore an officially enacted poll of student opinion because you or I or anyone else has a mere hunch - and that's all it can be until there's another referendum - that the students wouldn't mind.

So, I still think it was a cheap move by TN because there is a democratically voted boycott in place in Trinity on Coca Cola products.

I'll just simplify this for you, it doesn't seem to be getting through to you.

I'm not saying "oh no, the students are going to be annoyed" because that's not what I think. If it was I'd be rather unfortunately wrong, you're quite right. What I'm saying is, however, is "I think it was a pretty low thing to do on TN's behalf and I think other people would feel like this too if they thought about it enough."

People like you who claim to speak for the student body really annoy me, when it truth you only speak for your on agenda and are will to twist anything you want to suit that agenda.

I've heard this before on Boards. It seems to be people's first reaction to somebody who feels strongly about something, accuse them of having an agenda and thereby dismiss all of the points they've made, no matter how well they might have made them.

I think I might know the 'people like you' that you were referring to, those loud 'revolutionaries' that take issue with everything and get very little done.I can assure you I'm not one of them, I was actually in first year in UCD when the vote on Coke happened and as far as I remember I didn't vote.

In any case, I don't know why you think that, I've qualified everything I've said and I don't think I've twisted anything for my own means. The people who think that they are a better guage of overall student opinion than an officially enacted poll would be more guilty of twisting things than me, I would think.

I'm not claiming to speak on behalf of the student body in Trinity, I generally made it quite clear that I was speaking from my own opinion for most of the time. Forgive me for the times that I forgot to do that, I'll make sure to do it all the time in case it gives you any more trouble - in my opinion!

I have no agenda other than the things I said about TN. If you'd care to look at my original posts there were three problems stated about TN on a thread about TN, everybody else just seemed to want to talk about the Coca Cola one - in my opinion!

Anyway, I'm not here to defend why I said what I did. I don't have to, nor should I when I've gone to such lengths to qualify everything I said. If your idea of a discussion is throwing wild and unfounded accusations at people that disagree with you then I suggest you find another medium of communication less neutral than the internet.

The Coca Cola issue (I think!) is an important one. Think of it in these terms, this is the reason I posted it in the first place. Those arguments on numbers in the vote threw me off it a bit for a while.

The Coca Cola plant in Colombia was the scene of some shady carry-on a few years ago, people got intimidated, threatened, killed. Students in Ireland tried to show some solidarity with the rest of the trade unionists and put it to a vote to try to force Coke into taking some proper action over it.

The majority of those who weren't so apathetic that they didn't even vote (including me im UCD in first year) were in favour of banning Coke on campus. They did so. The Colombians are impressed by the students in Trinity, the country and the world get the message that UCD and Trinity students are against the irresponsible carry on of Coke.

Then TN run a full-page ad for the aforementioned, and banned Coca Cola, in their paper. They weren't obliged to boycott Coke, but the mandate in place at the moment being as it is means that they are breaking a student boycott by doing so. Effectively they passed the picket line, which I think is a low thing to do for a bit of money.

Now you don't have to even know what's going on in Colombia to agree that by breaking a picket line, they have done what is generally considered a spineless act of self-interest - of course that's just my opinion too!

Summary: the students in TN made a boo boo and I wasn't happy with it!

That's my point - in my opinion. If you disagree, fine, but don't try to detract from what I've said and explained amply by accusing me of twisting facts, I haven't. Go and read what I wrote again if that's what you think.

Boston

Spectator#1 wrote:

In any case, I don't know why you think that, I've qualified everything I've said and I don't think I've twisted anything for my own means. The people who think that they are a better guage of overall student opinion than an officially enacted poll would be more guilty of twisting things than me, I would think.

Less then 13% of students in trinity cared enough about the coca cola ban to vote in favour of it. Thats not my opinion, thats your own figures. It's not my opinion that the majority doesn't give a ****, again it's your own figures. You're trying to twist a view point held by less then 13% of people in trinity into something with represents the student body as a whole.

The only real thing you can infer from the people that didn't turn out is that they are neither for nor against the mandate, and as such are highly unlikely to care about an add. Now see if you can grasp that.

PS Fianna Fail are the democratically elected political party, remember that when talking about respecting mandates from representative bodies, and see the fallacy of your arguements.

Spectator#1

LiouVille wrote:

Less then 13% of students in trinity cared enough about the coca cola ban to vote in favour of it. Thats not my opinion, thats your own figures. It's not my opinion that the majority doesn't give a ****, again it's your own figures. You're trying to twist a view point held by less then 13% of people in trinity into something with represents the student body as a whole.

The only real thing you can infer from the people that didn't turn out is that they are neither for nor against the mandate, and as such are highly unlikely to care about an add. Now see if you can grasp that.

Again with the cursing, why do you bother, are you annoyed?

1. They aren't my figures, they are the figures of the poll.

2. Why do you keep making the point that the people who didn't vote aren't going to care about the ad (note spelling)? It doesn't matter whether they care about it or not, that was never part of my point. I'm not trying to argue that they do, why do you think that I am?

3. My point is this: a majority of the students in Trinity who voted (only 13%, granted) put in place a boycott on Coca Cola products. They may not represent the majority of students in the college, but it would be undemocratic to override their mandate because of that, all students had the opportunity to vote and many just didn't, for whatever reason.

So we are agreed that the mandate in place is democratically elected and the official results of that poll is that most Trinity students who cared enough about the vote to bother attending don't want Coke endorsed on campus.

Trinity News, as a student newspaper run by students, by printing the adverstisement for Coca Cola in their paper, broke the official picket line set by those students.

I think that was a bad spirited thing to do.

So, as you can see, the argument about the votes is secondary. You seem to think the people who didn't care enough to bother using their vote deserve to be considered. I don't really think that but I can see where you are coming from. At any rate, I don't think it matters all that much, TN broke the spirit of an officially elected boycott and I'm annoyed about it, that's what I said originally and I don't think I can explain it any simpler than that for you so try hard this time to comprehend it.

I had actually already conceded your point about the majority of students not voting before you even made it so your claim that I am somehow trying to twist facts and mislead people is wrongly placed.

PS Fianna Fail are the democratically elected political party, remember that when talking about respecting mandates from representative bodies, and see the fallacy of your arguements.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, sorry, could you explain please?

Boston

Spectator#1 wrote:

2. Why do you keep making the point that the people who didn't vote aren't going to care about the ad (note spelling)? It doesn't matter whether they care about it or not, that was never part of my point. I'm not trying to argue that they do, why do you think that I am?

Yes you are, you claim this is an attack on the student body

3. My point is this: a majority of the students in Trinity who voted (only 13%, granted) put in place a boycott on Coca Cola products. They may not represent the majority of students in the college, but it would be undemocratic to override their mandate because of that, all students had the opportunity to vote and many just didn't, for whatever reason.

How does this override the mandate not to sell coke in shops. You people have a problem separating reality from fiction.

So we are agreed that the mandate in place is democratically elected and the official results of that poll is that most Trinity students who cared enough about the vote to bother attending don't want Coke endorsed on campus.

Correction don't want coke sold in the SU shops. Again with the fiction.

Trinity News, as a student newspaper run by students, by printing the adverstisement for Coca Cola in their paper, broke the official picket line set by those students.

I love it, the official metaphorical (aka non-existent) picket line.

I think that was a bad spirited thing to do.

So, as you can see, the argument about the votes is secondary. You seem to think the people who didn't care enough to bother using their vote deserve to be considered. I don't really think that but I can see where you are coming from. At any rate,

The student body consists of more then those that voted against coke. The add may be an insult to those that voted against coke, however it cannot be taken as insult against the student body as a whole, since the mandate in no way can lay claim to represented the majority of students views. You came in here talking about the student body, in the typical way you people do, failing to realise that the majority of us don't care about your silly games. So what if less then 13% of people think something, why should the TN be bound by that?

I have my doubts that you've evolved to a level capable of being able to comprehend the complex concepts I'm trying to present here. You are not the world, you do not speak for the world, you are not the worlds righteous indignation taken form, you are not the beacon in the dark, the white knight, nor the peoples champion, you are some lowly student like myself, so stop being deluded.

Now Good Day to you Sir.

Time Magazine

Jaysis I'm bored so to answer a couple of points:

1. By "finger, button" I meant that Andrew_83's girlfriend (I can't remember her name) had her finger on the button, i.e. she was spot on.
2. I'm not so sure TN can afford to turn down Coke. As both myself and Andrew_83's girlfriend have experience in the production of TN - and we've both expressed general acceptance about funding in terms of need - the general consensus is that it is needed.
3. The TN employs advertising-getters on commission. I'm sure the editor is far too busy to have put thought into its provacation - I'm sure he would have enjoyed it though

Off-topic: Heh, just saw Séin of the electoral-register fame in the crowd at the Compromise Rules. He saw himself, laughs and shouts "F*ck!"

Spectator#1

LiouVille wrote:

Yes you are, you claim this is an attack on the student body

No I'm not, I'm claiming that it's derisive towards the official mandate that is in place in the college, there's a subtle difference there that you're missing out on. No offence.

How does this override the mandate not to sell coke in shops. You people have a problem separating reality from fiction.

It goes against that mandate by endorsing a Coca Cola product. I don't know what you mean by 'you people', could you explain that?

Correction don't want coke sold in the SU shops. Again with the fiction.

I love it, the official metaphorical (aka non-existent) picket line.

You don't love it do you? There's a mandate there, it's been ignored by the paper, they metaphorically passed the picket line, having trouble with abstract concepts are we?

I think that was a bad spirited thing to do.

I agree with you wholeheartedly!

The student body consists of more then those that voted against coke. The add may be an insult to those that voted against coke, however it cannot be taken as insult against the student body as a whole, since the mandate in no way can lay claim to represented the majority of students views. You came in here talking about the student body, in the typical way you people do, failing to realise that the majority of us don't care about your silly games. So what if less then 13% of people think something, why should the TN be bound by that?

Yes the student body does consist of more than those that voted, but the others didn't vote when they were free to and so the results of the poll remains indicative of the opinion of the students of Trinity College, regardless of what you keep saying. You can't make room for people who clearly didn't want to be counted.

Once again, 'you people' what do you mean? You keep making these generalisations and I don't know what you mean.

I have my doubts that you've evolved to a level capable of being able to comprehend the complex concepts I'm trying to present here. You are not the world, you do not speak for the world, you are not the worlds righteous indignation taken form, you are not the beacon in the dark, the white knight, nor the peoples champion, you are some lowly student like myself, so stop being deluded.

You're the one that seems to be unable to grasp the concept of a metaphorical picket line.

You still haven't copped on that I'm actually just expressing an opinion about what Trinity News did.

You still haven't realised that the point you're making is irrelevant. You keep repeating yourself.

You still seem to be unable to recognise that I'm actually just one person making a point about what I think and I'm not a whole group of people that you don't like.

What did these 'you people' do on you? Would they not let you hang around with them?

Your point isn't that complex, really it isn't.

On top of this, I would respect anyone who actually has opinions on these things, regardless of your derisive attitude towards them. It's much more preferable than the apathy you seem intent on imposing on me.

Very high language, though, well done, really, 'beacon in the dark', nice. Honestly, you should write for TN.

John

Spectator#1 wrote:

your spelling is rather messy

Not everyone on earth is able to spell correctly. You've spent a lot of time deriding both Liouville and Nietzschean for the way they type their messages. Please note that dyslexia affects about 8% of people (not that implying that either poster is dyslexic, my point is you don't know them nor their circumstances) and to me you come off as a condescending asshole whose points are irrelevant because you're picking on other's trivial mistakes/idiosyncrasies as a way of putting down their arguments. Why not just argue about the points in hand? It's not like a few typos is getting in the way of your comprehension of their posts.

Summary of my view on the TN coke ad/BESS lectureships: Mandate had nothing to do with other capitated bodies or academic units in TCD therefore they can do what they want with coke. Whether this is a break in solidarity with the SU's policy is a non-issue to me and considering I've heard no one else express concerns about it, I'm guessing it's a non-issue to everyone else.

Time Magazine

John wrote:

Not everyone on earth is able to spell correctly. You've spent a lot of time deriding both Liouville and Nietzschean for the way they type their messages. Please note that dyslexia affects about 8% of people (not that implying that either poster is dyslexic, my point is you don't know them nor their circumstances) and to me you come off as a condescending asshole whose points are irrelevant because you're picking on other's trivial mistakes/idiosyncrasies as a way of putting down their arguments. Why not just argue about the points in hand? It's not like a few typos is getting in the way of your comprehension of their posts.

Well said.

Summary of my view on the TN coke ad/BESS lectureships: Mandate had nothing to do with other capitated bodies or academic units in TCD therefore they can do what they want with coke. Whether this is a break in solidarity with the SU's policy is a non-issue to me and considering I've heard no one else express concerns about it, I'm guessing it's a non-issue to everyone else.

I think this is the concern; the poor people think an SU policy is somehow official and sacred. Much like Wands and Sceptres and flying the Rainbow Flag during Whatever-they-call-it Week.

The Coke/Nestlé ban is the SU's policy. I've defending their right to do this and so on several times on this board. But it's just the SU, who are one of five bodies under another body, under the Board. They're not official. It's almost identical to the CSC deciding they're not going to business with firm X. The only difference is there's a "democratic" mandate, which is outdated, and only voted for by 10% of the students, and tied in with another ban with Nestlé which is far more debateable than Coke - i.e. feck all democratic mandate.

Boston

John wrote:

Not everyone on earth is able to spell correctly. You've spent a lot of time deriding both Liouville and Nietzschean for the way they type their messages. Please note that dyslexia affects about 8% of people (not that implying that either poster is dyslexic, my point is you don't know them nor their circumstances) and to me you come off as a condescending asshole whose points are irrelevant because you're picking on other's trivial mistakes/idiosyncrasies as a way of putting down their arguments. Why not just argue about the points in hand? It's not like a few typos is getting in the way of your comprehension of their posts.

Well said John. I ran some of his posts through a spell checker with the expected results.

Ibid, well said good chap, talie hoe.

I must say, pats on the back all round.

Andrew 83

Spectator#1 wrote:

I've a couple of problems with the Trinity News.

1. The full-page ad for Coca Cola in Issue 1.

Is there not a Student Union mandate, as voted by Trinity's students, against the distribution of Coca Cola in Trinity? Even if the paper isn't funded by the Union at all - I'm not sure if it is - the fact that they ran that ad, especially such an obnoxiously large one, is a little disrespectful of the wishes of the students that they are supposedly representing.

2. The Irish page is gone and replaced by a very sparse, random smattering of Irish articles throughout the paper. I think this is a bad idea. The people who don't speak Irish in Trinity (far outweighing those who do I would think) will continue to skip the Irish articles whereas now those who do speak Irish and who want to read those articles have to go looking for them.

That's not to mention the fact that the amount of Irish articles in the paper would be greater if there was a whole page devoted to it. It seems to me that getting rid of the page is a thinly veiled excuse to phase Irish out altogether in TN.

3. That interview with the Immediate in Issue 2's TNT was embarrassing.

Just going to put some of my thought on this down as a former editor of the paper.

On the Coke ad: When I was editor last year Coke showed some interest in advertising but I made clear to the person in charge of getting the ads in that I wouldn't print a Coke ad. It's possible to get by without the ad but it's the editor's decision. I wouldn't have printed it (as I didn't) but I don't know the financial situation this year.

On the Irish articles: I'm in two minds. I had an Irish page and thought it was better that way but I can see the argument for the other way too. Instead of Irish being a token page, it puts articles in Irish more generally into the paper. It's not the first time there hasn't been a specific Irish page. The year the paper was tabloid (2002-2003 I'm pretty sure) it was not uncommon to have at least half, and sometimes more, of the news section in Irish including front page stories. I think this can be a little alienating however when it goes that far. Personally I would like to see Pubs have a termly magazine wholly in Irish (maybe in association with the Cumann Gaelach or someone like that if they're interested?).

Immediate interview: Haven't read it.


Overall I think this year's paper has been very strong. The second cleared most problems with the first and the news and related sections were much stronger. Layout is also excellent, very impressive.

Finally I was very disappointed that the paper decided to take an editorial stance in favour of teh re-introduction of fees. I felt the editorial putting itr forward was simplistic and that fees would be a step backwards, not forward. Last year we took editorial stands against the introduction of fees in the health centre and private funding in college amongst other things so it was a pity to see those kind of stances reversed with this.

Andrew 83

Ibid wrote:

I think this is the concern; the poor people think an SU policy is somehow official and sacred. Much like Wands and Sceptres and flying the Rainbow Flag during Whatever-they-call-it Week.

I think that the results of a referendum of the student population are more relevant to college at large than motions passed throguh Council. The view points taken in the referendums shoudl be considered by other capitated bodies even if they eventually decide not to follow the same line.

Boston

Andrew 83 wrote:

I think that the results of a referendum of the student population are more relevant to college at large than motions passed throguh Council. The view points taken in the referendums shoudl be considered by other capitated bodies even if they eventually decide not to follow the same line.

I don't consider 13% of the people deciding for 100% of the people to be democratic, nor to be a mandate for anything.

Andrew 83

LiouVille wrote:

I don't consider 13% of the people deciding for 100% of the people to be democratic, nor to be a mandate for anything.

Let's not make this a debate about the referendums. All I'll say is if the other 87% all disagreed they should have come out and voted (I know that some did but less than came out to support the ban).

xebec

Andrew 83 wrote:

If you get Firefox 2 does it bring across all favourite type things you have saved below the address bar? Also does it bring across your plug ins?

Yes, your bookmarks should work fine after switching. The plugins will depend on what has been updated, any major ones should work by now. The Spellchecker plugin in v2 is one of the best I've seen, very handy!

Andrew 83

xebec wrote:

Yes, your bookmarks should work fine after switching. The plugins will depend on what has been updated, any major ones should work by now. The Spellchecker plugin in v2 is one of the best I've seen, very handy!

Excellent, think I'll move across then. Thanks

John

Andrew 83 wrote:

All I'll say is if the other 87% all disagreed they should have come out and voted

I don't know, with such a low turn out I wouldn't consider it a proper vote. Is there a minimum turn out for SU referenda? Or could in theory ten people turn up and it be allowed?

Time Magazine

That's exactly the problem John. I support the SU ban on Coke/Nestlé, even though I continue to buy Coke. But people saying that a vote by one body, of ~20% of the electorate, has some sort of mandate over another body, is a bit too much. That said, I do agree with Andrew's comment that it should be taken note of.

John

So do I but I don't think that TN didn't take note of the situation and that they did weigh the pros and cons. If they didn't then they're fools.

Andrew 83

John wrote:

I don't know, with such a low turn out I wouldn't consider it a proper vote. Is there a minimum turn out for SU referenda? Or could in theory ten people turn up and it be allowed?

10% is the minimum. Funnily enough the referendum that brought it in had a turnout of less than 10%!

John

Really? 10% seems very low to me, I would have thought it should be up around 25% or so. Even then I think that's pushing it.

Andrew 83

John wrote:

Really? 10% seems very low to me, I would have thought it should be up around 25% or so. Even then I think that's pushing it.

Before that there was no minimum!

Andrew_83

Andrew_83 wrote:

Before that there was no minimum!

Andrew_83 wrote:

10% is the minimum. Funnily enough the referendum that brought it in had a turnout of less than 10%!

There was a 10% minimum turnout for constitutional changes before, but policy changes (i.e. Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Abortion) didn't require the 10%. Now there is no requirement for either bar a simple majority.

ApeXaviour

Wow this is a boring thread


note to self, don't drink so much on sundays, don't smoke so much tobacco on sundays, don't stay up so late on sundays and don't get tonsilitis on sundays.

foxybrowne

ApeXaviour wrote:

Wow this is a boring thread

Hi, this is a really interesting and engaging thread. Its the first one I've ever read start to finish on the TCD Forum. For more info on the worldwide Coca-Cola boycott, check out http://www.killercoke.org/ and check out the sterling work carried out by Killer Coke activists at the Aussie Rules match yesterday, see here.

Spectator#1

Andrew83 wrote:

Let's not make this a debate about the referendums.

*Ronan wishes he'd said this two pages ago*

All I'll say is if the other 87% all disagreed they should have come out and voted (I know that some did but less than came out to support the ban).

Thank you, that's what I've been trying to say as well only to receive accusations of all sorts!

Andrew 83 wrote:

On the Coke ad: When I was editor last year Coke showed some interest in advertising but I made clear to the person in charge of getting the ads in that I wouldn't print a Coke ad. It's possible to get by without the ad but it's the editor's decision. I wouldn't have printed it (as I didn't) but I don't know the financial situation this year.

Yeah, the financial thing is tricky. Does TN rely much on advertisements? I still think they could have gotten different ad's. Pepsi would probably jump at the opportunity considering the vote that's in place!

On the Irish articles: I'm in two minds. I had an Irish page and thought it was better that way but I can see the argument for the other way too. Instead of Irish being a token page, it puts articles in Irish more generally into the paper. It's not the first time there hasn't been a specific Irish page. The year the paper was tabloid (2002-2003 I'm pretty sure) it was not uncommon to have at least half, and sometimes more, of the news section in Irish including front page stories. I think this can be a little alienating however when it goes that far. Personally I would like to see Pubs have a termly magazine wholly in Irish (maybe in association with the Cumann Gaelach or someone like that if they're interested?).

Yeah I'd agree that making Irish really prominent in the paper is a bad idea. There's plenty of non-Irish speaking people in Trinity, native and Erasmus students, so to give it half the paper would be a bit over the top.

I thought it wouldn't be a bad idea when I first saw that they were cutting the page and mixing the Irish articles in but the number of Irish articles has just about halved since that happened and I think that's a bad thing.

It wouldn't be so bad if there were the same amount of Irish articles interspersed throughout the paper as there used to be on the page but there aren't, there's only been two in each issue and that's a little bit minimalistic.

Someone was talking about Irish a few pages back as though it was a patronising exercise in 'doing our bit' for the language whereby we all (as leaving cert graduates) try to decipher the meaning of this weeks articles like it's a Sudoku puzzle.

For one thing, the standard of Irish is usually, I am sure, significantly better than the reading comprehension section of the Leaving Cert. examination.

Some Trinity students actually went to Irish speaking schools and/or come from Gaeltacht areas. Those people, I'm sure, try to or at least would like to communicate as much as possible in Irish when they can in Trinity. Modern and Early Irish are subjects with reasonably strong numbers of students as well.

The Irish articles in the paper allow these students to write and read in a different style than they would for their essays. They get to communicate in Irish as well. The Irish articles are first and foremost for them. The way you could say the Science page is of most interest to science students?

Yeah the idea of a term based Irish publication wouldn't be a bad idea either. I just think it's admirable that Trinity News, over most college papers, has always recognised the genuine demand for an Irish page and it would be a shame to play it down now.

Andrew83 wrote:

Immediate interview: Haven't read it.

Don't! Or do, it's kind of funny but it's hard to tell if that's what the author wanted!

Spectator#1

Spectator#1 wrote:

Pepsi would probably jump at the opportunity considering the vote that's in place!

I think that their thinking after Coke was removed from the SU shops was that they now have the monopoly on cola (apart from lesser known/purchased) products in the SU shops. Plus from my experience from travelling around Europe you saw millions of ads for Coke everywhere you could with not that many Pepsi ads.

I remember being told that after the Coca-Cola ban C&C didn't wish to offer sponsorship to the SU due to a lack of competition, similar to the above. This all anecdotal, of course.

Andrew 83

Spectator#1 wrote:

Yeah, the financial thing is tricky. Does TN rely much on advertisements? I still think they could have gotten different ad's. Pepsi would probably jump at the opportunity considering the vote that's in place!

For every euro raised in advertising the paper receives a grant of 50 cent from college. eg. If an edition of the paper costs 3,000 euro, 2,000 has be raised in advertising. You need to raise circa 20,000 euro for a year's worth of issues.

So, if this is all making sense, TN is reliant on advertising for 2/3 of its funding and the other third is reliant on getting that 2/3 in.

Spectator#1

Ibid wrote:

That's exactly the problem John. I support the SU ban on Coke/Nestlé, even though I continue to buy Coke. But people saying that a vote by one body, of ~20% of the electorate, has some sort of mandate over another body, is a bit too much. That said, I do agree with Andrew's comment that it should be taken note of.

I do see your point about the referendum Ibid, and John, and LiouVille. I still think my argument stands. It's not a case of one body having a mandate over and against another. It's a case of a whole body of students having the opportunity to put a mandate in place by each using their vote and most of them not bothering to do so.

If the students that didn't vote had cared about their opinion being heard at all, whatever their stance on the Coca-Cola/Nestlé issue was, they could have made that clear in the referendum. By not voting, they effectively nulled any right to a claim on the matter. It's not like I'm discriminating against them, there were no obstructions there to stop them from voting.

Whatever way you look at it, the Student Union's anti-Coke/Nestlé stance is democratically decided, official and representative of the voting student body.

I'm not saying that TN printing the ad is an attack on the whole student body, I never did. I'm saying that I think it demonstrates a derisive attitude towards that officially implemented boycott.

One point you could make - which still wouldn't change anything about the fact that Trinity News printed the ad - is that a lot of the students who might have voted in that election may not be in the college anymore. In this instance it would be fair to suggest that perhaps the referendum be renewed to update current student opinion.

Spectator#1

Andrew83 wrote:

For every euro raised in advertising the paper receives a grant of 50 cent from college. eg. If an edition of the paper costs 3,000 euro, 2,000 has be raised in advertising. You need to raise circa 20,000 euro for a year's worth of issues.

So, if this is all making sense, TN is reliant on advertising for 2/3 of its funding and the other third is reliant on getting that 2/3 in.

That's a lot of money. I still think there are other companies/organisations who'd take an ad out in the paper in Coke's place. Hell, I'll even take an ad out:

Indignation-of-the-World-Taken-Form/Beacon-of-Light-for-the-Student Populace (IWTFBLSP). Available for consultation Mondays and Wednesdays, 12-2. Bring own lunch, opinions provided.

Also available for weddings and business events.

Contact: 1850-U-P-E-O-P-L-E or VOICE_OF_THE_WORLD@factorfiction.com

What you think LiouVille? Would you make a booking?

Myth wrote:

I think that their thinking after Coke was removed from the SU shops was that they now have the monopoly on cola (apart from lesser known/purchased) products in the SU shops. Plus from my experience from travelling around Europe you saw millions of ads for Coke everywhere you could with not that many Pepsi ads.

I remember being told that after the Coca-Cola ban C&C didn't wish to offer sponsorship to the SU due to a lack of competition, similar to the above. This all anecdotal, of course.

I suppose that makes sense yeah, maybe St. Bernard or Thrift cola would consider taking an ad out! Yeah I noticed that too, Coke is kind of marketed differently on the continent isn't it? I think Pepsi is bigger in the states than it is over here.

I wouldn't know though, I drink Domestos.

Boston

Spectator#1 wrote:

What you think LiouVille? Would you make a booking?

I don't know, how good are you at oral sex.

xebec

Bartronilic wrote:

And now it's useless now that everyone knows who is behind it.

Obviously not everyone knows who's behind it! I don't!! And I am friends with/have contact with over half the people mentioned in the most recent article.

Although I have heard some rumours, I still don't actually know who it is, so please feel free to enlighten me!

FionnMatthew

There's an unbelievable amount of hypocrisy going around on this thread.

LiouVille wrote:

I have my doubts that you've evolved to a level capable of being able to comprehend the complex concepts I'm trying to present here.

If you're going pull a trick like this, you could be a lot more careful about deploying relatively complex concepts (like evolution) in a manner that seems to demonstrate to all and sundry that you don't really understand them yourself.

LiouVille wrote:

You are not the world, you do not speak for the world, you are not the worlds righteous indignation taken form, you are not the beacon in the dark, the white knight, nor the peoples champion,

And neither, it might be said, are you any of those things. So it is counterproductive in the context of what's going on here to get nearly as riled as you've been getting about the matter in hand. A fitting riposte to what you've written would be that if you deny someone the right to "speak for the world" you shouldn't object when, equally, they demand not to be stereotyped and conflated by you with any group of people with whom it would appear you have some sort of problem. Address people on their own terms, not on terms you (erroneously) attribute them.

First, responding to:

LiouVille wrote:

I love the way you try to make out that just because a handfull of students voted against coke, it represents the whole student bodies opinion on the matter......
[and in another post later on]
.......The student body consists of more then those that voted against coke. The add may be an insult to those that voted against coke, however it cannot be taken as insult against the student body as a whole, since the mandate in no way can lay claim to represent the majority of students views.

So if that mandate, based on an SU referendum, did have some claim to representing all students' views, then it could be construed that the ad was insulting, right?

Oh wait, what's this?

Trinity College Dublin, Students' Union, Constitution, Paragraph 2 wrote:

The organisation shall be the only official representative organisation of all
the students of Trinity College and the University of Dublin,

So the mandate does represent the student body as a whole. The use of that phrase by Spectator#1 is, in this case, correct, and is not, as you have accused, an attempt to assume the cloak of "people's champion". The SU is constitutionally adequate to fill that cloak.

You might claim that the Coke vote is misrepresentative of people's views on the basis of voter apathy, as you have here:

LiouVille wrote:

The overwhelming majority didn't care enough about this crap to vote, .....
[and later on]
......I don't consider 13% of the people deciding for 100% of the people to be democratic, nor to be a mandate for anything.

Considering that those 13% are the people who voted, and bearing in mind that it is by voting that one exercises one's democratic prerogative for collective decision-making, one might be forgiven for missing the point of exactly how this situation is undemocratic.

And as for whether it's a mandate, well....

Princeton University Wordnet, Definition of Mandate wrote:

the commission that is given to a government and its policies through an electoral victory

So, the boycott on CocaCola is an (1)official, (2)democratic sanction for the boycott of CocaCola by the SU, which (3)represents the student body as a whole. As an official crystallisation of the views of the student body, it is not vulnerable to second-guessing.

LiouVille wrote:

The overwhelming majority didn't care enough about this crap to vote, therefore they are unlikely to give a crap about some add, stop pretending.

It doesn't matter that a majority are apathetic. The TN, in printing this ad, is in contempt of the official line of the student body as a whole. The TN has no contractual obligation to uphold the boycott, but Spectator's point was that printing the ad is contemptuous of the official stance of the student body.

As a public act, it is hard not to notice it, and seeing as all of the parties are public institutions, there is no need to make reference to indeterminate data, such as what you imagine the 77% of students who didn't vote might think. Those voices have auto-absented themselves from the official tally. There is no need. We are dealing only with official institutions and stances here, not individual opinions - those have been dealt with already.

Which you have as much as said here:

LiouVille wrote:

The only real thing you can infer from the people that didn't turn out is that they are neither for nor against the mandate, and as such are highly unlikely to care about an add. Now see if you can grasp that.

Which only serves to reveal that you have failed to grasp that Spectator isn't talking about whether or not the students care. He's voicing an opinion on the fact that the TN chose to publicly act in contempt of an official SU stance. And since you seem to have allowed earlier that if the mandate could be seen to represent the whole student body, then the TN action could be considered insulting ("The add may be an insult to those that voted against coke,"), then bearing in mind the extract from the SU constitution, Spectator's initial point seems rather unobjectionable.

People like you who claim to speak for the student body really annoy me, when it truth you only speak for your on agenda and are will to twist anything you want to suit that agenda.....[blah blah blah]....You came in here talking about the student body, in the typical way you people do, failing to realise that the majority of us don't care about your silly games. So what if less then 13% of people think something, why should the TN be bound by that?.......[blah blah blah].......You people have a problem separating reality from fiction. .......[blah blah blah].......see the fallacy of your arguements.

I was tempted to make a general statement about people who make faulty generalisations here, but I decided that that'd be a hasty generalisation about you. So I won't. I will direct you to this article on fallacies, however, with an injunction to pay particular attention to the Straw Man Fallacy, the Biased Sample Fallacy, and the Hasty Generalisation Fallacy, all which you have expertly deployed in the past couple of days. Well done.

Andrew 83

Sorry I know I said I didn't want this to be a debate on the referendum but just one more thing.

The most recent referendum was an attempt to get rid of the two boycotts, not to introduce them. Therefore it was up to those who don't want the boycott to be in place to vote. Not enough people cared about getting rid of the ban for it to be reversed. The majority of the student population, through not bothering to vote either way on overturning it, indicated that they had no major problem with the status quo (ie. the boycott). It's a minority, both in absolute terms and in terms of the turnout for the referendum, who have an active wish to remove the boycotts.

Boston

FionnMatthew wrote:

Blah blah blah BIG WORDS GO HERE, Blah blah blah, look at me I'm SMART

People like you, without any real grounds to rebuke arugements often hide behind high-falutin language. Your point is clear, you are full of it, but your point is clear. We should all give care because 13% of us care, once, along time ago, and everybody should repsect that the SU decided 13% of students can make decisions for us all. Personally I think it's perfectly valid to say that 87% didn't care then, and sure a **** don't care now. They don't care, how can I make that clearer to you. The vast majority of the papers readers don't care, so how was it in concept of the actual student body, as apposed to the fake student body you talk about

Spectator#1

LiouVille wrote:

I don't know, how good are you at oral sex.

I'm sorry, there seems to have been a misunderstanding there. I was suggesting that you might benefit from hearing my opinion, which I am told also happens to represent that of the entire world. I had no intention of offering any kind of sexual gratification.

I can see how you made that mistake though. I apologise for leading you on. I'm sure you won't mind 'looking after yourself' for a bit longer will you? You could always try the personals section of TN if all else fails!

Boston

Spectator#1 wrote:

I'm sorry, there seems to have been a misunderstanding there. I was suggesting that you might benefit from hearing my opinion, which I am told also happens to represent that of the entire world. I had no intention of offering any kind of sexual gratification.

I can see how you made that mistake though. I apologise for leading you on. I'm sure you won't mind 'looking after yourself' for a bit longer will you? You could always try the personals section of TN if all else fails!

I think I'm in love.