crazy pool party in roebuck!

Tammy Pon

was anyone at this?? what happened?

damselnat

Guy got evicted. There's now a group on Facebook "Save the Hugo":D

Brimmy

Anyone care to explain?

Tammy Pon

lol who is this hugo man? i heard it was gary redmonds party or something...?


ps. i cant find dat group on facebook:(

dyl10

Sounds great!

More details or gtfo

muffinman

they covered the place in sand and had these mini paddling pools and stuff.. It was before the break and the guy got kicked out

Brimmy

That sounds fun... can see why he got kicked out though.

Bit of a stupid thing to do on his part seeing as security have been uber strict this year over the minutest of things in the first place.

Red Alert

I take it they put the sand and pools inside?

damselnat

and shells and crabs from the beach and plastic sheeting covered in water for sliding down the hall and they ripped the fire alarms out of the ceiling. You should have seen the look on the security guards faces as all these guys in flowery shorts and tshirts and sandals wandered past them on a freezing cold night that was funny enough in itself

dyl10

damselnat wrote: »

they ripped the fire alarms out of the ceiling.

It was funny up until that.....

damselnat

Yeah, that's taking the p*ss tbh

RichTea

I was just about to say "Wow, thats brilliant" until I saw they ripped the fire alarms down. What in the name of Hugh Brady possessed them to do that?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

RichTea wrote: »

I was just about to say "Wow, thats brilliant" until I saw they ripped the fire alarms down. What in the name of Hugh Brady possessed them to do that?

It's these fees that are coming in. They are driving people crazy.

Brimmy

Sean_K wrote: »

It's these fees that are coming in. They are driving people crazy.

Yeah if people have to pay for college then they have the right to wreck it :rolleyes:

imp

damselnat wrote: »

they ripped the fire alarms out of the ceiling.

Never mind eviction I'm pretty sure that kind of thing can lead to prosecution...

Can't say I'm overly sympathetic...

Stabshauptmann

should have waited until after exams...

Jev/N

Should have been kicked out of college TBH

Tom65

RichTea wrote: »

I was just about to say "Wow, thats brilliant" until I saw they ripped the fire alarms down. What in the name of Hugh Brady possessed them to do that?

Yeah, I think that's the point at which I'd go from thinking "ha, this is great craic" to "eh...careful now".

Did he expect any less than to get kicked out, in fairness?

Notorious

Tom65 wrote: »

Did he expect any less than to get kicked out, in fairness?

Did he get kicked out of the college, or just the student residences? He was taking it way too far before he tore the alarms out of the wall. Would've loved to have seen the setup though.

mloc

Eviction, expulsion and criminal damages would be a start IMO. What a muppet.

Leprachaun

Most people here are such dry ****es saying they should get kicked out of college etc.. Probably the same people who gave out about the snow riots. That party sounded like a great laugh,wish I was there.

alan4cult

Leprachaun wrote: »

Most people here are such dry ****es saying they should get kicked out of college etc.. Probably the same people who gave out about the snow riots. That party sounded like a great laugh,wish I was there.

So is it ok if we head over to your place for a pool party on the last day of term?

mloc

Leprachaun wrote: »

Most people here are such dry ****es saying they should get kicked out of college etc.. Probably the same people who gave out about the snow riots. That party sounded like a great laugh,wish I was there.

It is essentialy vandalism. He doesn't own the place. If it was a private rental he'd be in court over it.

dyl10

Leprachaun wrote: »

Most people here are such dry ****es saying they should get kicked out of college etc.. Probably the same people who gave out about the snow riots. That party sounded like a great laugh,wish I was there.

You were making the same defense of those idiots with the snow.
Maybe you should still be in secondary school?

Tayto2000

mloc wrote: »

It is essentialy vandalism. He doesn't own the place. If it was a private rental he'd be in court over it.

Yup. And of course it looks great when the SU are trying to negotiate tenancy rights and argue against the gates.

33% God

Tayto2000 wrote: »

Yup. And of course it looks great when the SU are trying to negotiate tenancy rights and argue against the gates.

This doesn't really have a whole lot to do with gates to be fair.

Tammy Pon

anyone have any pics of it??

jimi_t

Tayto2000 wrote: »

Yup. And of course it looks great when the SU are trying to negotiate tenancy rights and argue against the gates.

While it certainly doesn't help the case, there is an argument for the fact that an event of these proportions probably wouldn't happen every 2/3 years if the regulations for on-campus accomodation were remotely as lenient as those for most other 3rd level institutions in the UK/Western Europe.

The stories I've been hearing from friends on Erasmus who are given a spare matress with their rental for anyone who might want to crash the night etc... really put things in perspective. You treat residents like children and they soon end up acting like children - resulting in an incident which doesn't benefit either side.

Jev/N

There's a reason for not allowing people stay over in the apartments (even though I had my g/f over plenty of times when I was on campus) it's down to safety and insurance, that's it.

vote4pedro

Jev/N wrote: »

There's a reason for not allowing people stay over in the apartments (even though I had my g/f over plenty of times when I was on campus) it's down to safety and insurance, that's it.

That may be the official line alright, but its a joke. Please explain how "safety" reasons mean you cant have a mate kip on a couch??

I agree with the poster who says treat people like children results in them acting like children. The snow "riots" were a great example of that, anywhere else people would have just got on with it and it wouldn't have gotten as out of hand as it did, instead it was a chance to cause a bit of ruckus and stick it to the man who prevents any semblence of spontanous fun on campus.

Tayto2000

vote4pedro wrote: »

That may be the official line alright, but its a joke. Please explain how "safety" reasons mean you cant have a mate kip on a couch??

The visitor policy among other things is currently unfair. Fair and reasonable changes to the res rules should be what the SU should be aiming for, and it's an achievable target.

vote4pedro wrote: »

I agree with the poster who says treat people like children results in them acting like children.

Chicken/Egg situation here imo.

vote4pedro wrote: »

The snow "riots" were a great example of that, anywhere else people would have just got on with it and it wouldn't have gotten as out of hand as it did, instead it was a chance to cause a bit of ruckus and stick it to the man who prevents any semblence of spontanous fun on campus.

So you want to be treated as an adult yet somehow not be responsible for your actions? Riiigghht... Good luck sticking it to 'the man' too, it's always hilarious hearing from privileged 3rd level attendees about how they're being oppressed :rolleyes:

bnt

By all means have fun, but there are lines you don't cross. The "snow mob" went too far by rampaging across the campus, pelting people with hard snow and stones, and damaging equipment. This "pool party" crossed the line when property got damaged.

You do not mess with fire alarms (fire exits, extinguishers, other safety or lifesaving equipment). What a drag, eh? "The man" doesn't want you to endanger your life and the lives of others? You can never say "oh, that equipment won't be needed" - that is not your call to make. Did you notice how the sympathy level in this thread fell off a cliff, as soon as you mentioned damaging fire alarms? You (or whoever) crossed the line there.

One thing I've learned: "the man" is often someone who's been there, done that, and finally gets just how stupid he was when he was a kid. People are not born old, and even your parents were once your age, and remember what they were like. (Ask them if you don't believe me.)

Mikeyt086

Can i ask why everyone is saying "Ah jesus HE shouldnt have ripped the alarms, thats too far?"

How do you know it was him? Anyone who has been at a gaff or house party will know that certain blokes show up, mostly not wanted, and take it too far.

Now, i wasnt there, i didnt know this guy, but it seems to me to be the classic case of Guy organises party, a bit wild, people keep showing up, few tanked up lads who barely know said Guy start doing stupid ****.

Always happens, at least once a day an alarm is set off in UCD by a friend of a friend of a guy who gets in trouble.

So i wouldnt say "He should have been kicked out of college" because nobody knows exactley what HE did. They should find and fine the vandals.

Eviction seems fair because he did breach the rules.

Maybe im wrong, maybe one guy did do everything, but that is bloody unlikely.

vote4pedro

Tayto2000 wrote: »

The visitor policy among other things is currently unfair. Fair and reasonable changes to the res rules should be what the SU should be aiming for, and it's an achievable target.



Chicken/Egg situation here imo.



So you want to be treated as an adult yet somehow not be responsible for your actions? Riiigghht... Good luck sticking it to 'the man' too, it's always hilarious hearing from privileged 3rd level attendees about how they're being oppressed :rolleyes:

You strike me as being the type of person in primary school likely to come out with "Teacher, teacher, john hasn't got his homework done".

How do you know I'm privileged?

Look at how Trinity works, no snow riots, their <snip> passess off without people needing to wreck their beautiful college grounds, no buses being smashed to bits by students. So why does that happen at UCD? Is it because a fundamentally different type of Irish early twenties student goes there? Of course not.

But look at the way Trinity treat their students; allowed drink cans from their student bar, no constant intimidating security, students being trusted to run their <snip> in a grown up manner (you'd swear its a G20 job when the UCD ball is on with the restrictions, security, limitations across campus). The result is that immature students dont need to seize every opportunity to lash out and act the maggot. It reminds me of when you went in to 6th year in school, suddenly the messers who were constantly trying to get on teachers nerves, refusing to go along with anything, get treated with a bit more respect and more like adults and it placates them. Of course everyone should be able to act like that, but its human nature that there will be people who do need to be 'coerced' in that way. Instead restrict late bars on campus to once every x months, and watch everyone go absolutely mental at the idea of a rare opportunity "to go crazy."

But let me guess, you'd be against cans in the bar (we've a drinking culture that simply shouldn't be encouraged and so the only way of cracking down on it is to restrict can drinking), you want the bold boys to smoke on the island in the lake (it was you who claimed to be able to smell smoke in the upper floors of the Arts block, and likened it to be people walking in human waste, right?), you're probably for the overly restrictive security and policing at events like UCD Ball that we've seen in recent years (what if someone trips and has an accident), gonna have a punt that you're all for students being banged up for drinking cans by the secret lake on a nice day (those hooligans are breaching numerous environmental littering codes).

I'm fully aware I am putting words in to your mouth and apologise for doing so, but you certainly seem to "tow the line" anytime I've noticed your posting, but feel free to correct me. What I'm saying is that it's far too simple to say its a chicken and egg situation, that leads to the current attitude being adopted by the upper brass which cracks down on the above sort of thing, I'm sure you agree.
That's the attitude currently adopted, and look where we are: buses being wrecked, people drinking to excess, fire alarms ripped out, feeling like you're walking through East Berlin with the amount of security, an incredible lack of atmosphere and sense of fun around the place....the list goes on.

Instead of perhaps looking at WHY we have those problems, we get people bleating on about bull**** health&safety rules, agreeing with current restrictions, encouraging greater restrictions, and instead whinging about vital issues like a sign for the Restaurant not also being as gaeilge.


Summary for tl;dr: when bad shít happens on campus people say OMG this is why you need earlier closing times/no cans/greater security/DNA swabbing of students/checkpoints in to the res...and yet bad shít continues to happen. Why not change that approach which clearly isn't working, to the approach adopted by another college fifteen minutes away that doesn't have these problems.

Jev/N

If you set out to have a "beach party" in your apartment, you deserve to suffer the consequences, whether you were involved directly with the fire alarms or not. Putting paddling pools full of water and bags of sand in a top floor apartment is "taking it too far", it's not like it was just a normal session which snowballed from there!

With regard to the visitor rules, the safety issue comes into it where if there's a fire and everyone is counted by the R.A, but there are extra visitors there unknown to the R.A and unaccounted for, who could be still in the building.
As I said before, I had people over plenty of times when I was there and while I do understand why the rule is in place, they could have a system where you sign in the visitor (like in other colleges) and then the R.A's have you on a list and know you're in the building

vote4pedro

Jev/N wrote: »

With regard to the visitor rules, the safety issue comes into it where if there's a fire and everyone is counted by the R.A, but there are extra visitors there unknown to the R.A and unaccounted for, who could be still in the building.
As I said before, I had people over plenty of times when I was there and while I do understand why the rule is in place, they could have a system where you sign in the visitor (like in other colleges) and then the R.A's have you on a list and know you're in the building

Or how about a letter from your parents or parish priest? Or, and this will sound crazy, how about treating people like adults?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

They should persue those responsible for the crap that goes on rather than introducing unreasonable rules that apply to everyone.

994

Jev/N wrote: »

If you set out to have a "beach party" in your apartment, you deserve to suffer the consequences, whether you were involved directly with the fire alarms or not. Putting paddling pools full of water and bags of sand in a top floor apartment is "taking it too far", it's not like it was just a normal session which snowballed from there!

With regard to the visitor rules, the safety issue comes into it where if there's a fire and everyone is counted by the R.A, but there are extra visitors there unknown to the R.A and unaccounted for, who could be still in the building.
As I said before, I had people over plenty of times when I was there and while I do understand why the rule is in place, they could have a system where you sign in the visitor (like in other colleges) and then the R.A's have you on a list and know you're in the building

It shouldn't matter what you do to your apartment or what you put in it, so long as it's clean when you move out. Your fire thing is nonsense, because the RA has no way of knowing in the first place how many residents are staying in a block on a certain night.

Jev/N

994 wrote: »

It shouldn't matter what you do to your apartment or what you put in it, so long as it's clean when you move out. Your fire thing is nonsense, because the RA has no way of knowing in the first place how many residents are staying in a block on a certain night.

It may be nonsense, but that's supposedly the reasoning behind it. I never said I was advocating it at all, just stating that they were the rules

@vote4pedro - I've been to other colleges and stayed over in apartments, the signing in thing is done in other places for insurance reasons or whatever, I don't know the finer details, but it works

El Siglo

Having a pool party in your gaff on campus, is retarded, you wouldn't do it in your parents house i.e. your own 'home', you definately wouldn't get away with it in privately rented accomodation, very simple case of pool party + arse hole(s) = kicked off campus. If he had any sense, do it on the last day of term or exams, innocuous enough times, feck all people still around either gone home or studying or both.

Something I want to clarify before I go into the rest of this post, there's nothing wrong with drinking, it's not very healthy but neither is most things these days, and drinking is as much a part of being a student as essay, societies, and boards.ie! I just want to get this out of the way, in case of anyone getting their knickers in a knot!
With regards the issue of being treated like children (I refrain from the use of the word 'kid', kid is a young goat), there is too much security here, very intimidating, there should be cans served in the bars, alcohol consumption should be a free enterprise, and if you act like a retard then you face the consequences. The place has become a mini-police state, security is good and all but, it is way over board. However, there are a lot of complete f*cking fools (considering the numbers in UCD etc... this isn't a hard concept to grasp) who act like retards on a daily basis, these c*nts are ruining it for us all, wrecking the bus shelter, throwing snowballs at random people, having a ridiculous pool party etc... It's one thing to be treated like a child but it's another thing to act like one. Don't give security and the authorities the chance to treat us all like sh*t (we get this already in the real world), don't act like fools, don't 'act out' for the sake of it, pick your battles so to speak. Most of the time the people to act like retards are of course 1st years, they're stupid, still in that "I'm going to University College, Dublin", ucd scarf wearing phase. Most of the rest of us i.e. 2nd, 3rd/final year people would just like to have a laugh without being hassled, unfortunately these cretins are ruining it. Anyway whatever happened to just getting a few dozen cans, a guitar or ipod and just relax, we're always in a hurry to get twisted or we want to look for attention, such as the retard with a pool party!;)

End of rant!

Tayto2000

vote4pedro wrote: »

You strike me as being the type of person in primary school likely to come out with "Teacher, teacher, john hasn't got his homework done".

Pointless, irrelevant, ad hominem. Next?

vote4pedro wrote: »

How do you know I'm privileged?

You're in third level, yes? You didn't for example have to enter the labour force straight after school?

vote4pedro wrote: »

Look at how Trinity works, no snow riots, their <snip> passess off without people needing to wreck their beautiful college grounds, no buses being smashed to bits by students. So why does that happen at UCD? Is it because a fundamentally different type of Irish early twenties student goes there? Of course not.

But look at the way Trinity treat their students; allowed drink cans from their student bar, no constant intimidating security, students being trusted to run their <snip> in a grown up manner (you'd swear its a G20 job when the UCD ball is on with the restrictions, security, limitations across campus). The result is that immature students dont need to seize every opportunity to lash out and act the maggot. It reminds me of when you went in to 6th year in school, suddenly the messers who were constantly trying to get on teachers nerves, refusing to go along with anything, get treated with a bit more respect and more like adults and it placates them. Of course everyone should be able to act like that, but its human nature that there will be people who do need to be 'coerced' in that way. Instead restrict late bars on campus to once every x months, and watch everyone go absolutely mental at the idea of a rare opportunity "to go crazy."

Interesting. I'd agree with you on this to a certain extent, the damage in Belgrove that triggered the res clampdown was (I think anyway) a reaction to the fact that the end of term was controlled that year - nothing like it happened in 2007 because of the great end of term day that was had. But your fundamental point is that if everything was completely relaxed, there'd be no problems at all - I don't think that's true. Lessons should be learned from Trinity I agree, but the analogy isn't perfect, they are very different in terms of layout and location not to mention physical size.

vote4pedro wrote: »

But let me guess, you'd be against cans in the bar (we've a drinking culture that simply shouldn't be encouraged and so the only way of cracking down on it is to restrict can drinking), you want the bold boys to smoke on the island in the lake (it was you who claimed to be able to smell smoke in the upper floors of the Arts block, and likened it to be people walking in human waste, right?), you're probably for the overly restrictive security and policing at events like UCD Ball that we've seen in recent years (what if someone trips and has an accident), gonna have a punt that you're all for students being banged up for drinking cans by the secret lake on a nice day (those hooligans are breaching numerous environmental littering codes).

LOL :pac:

Play the ball, not the player, this isn't about me. I was impressed with your previous argument, then you come out with this guff. I've resisted the line by line answer (Although sorely tempted ) but I will say that you've got me wrong. I am in favour of following the rules (They're what allow a population of ~25000 to get along in relative peace and harmony), but I also expect those rules to be reasonable, which a lot of them aren't - taking the Arts smoking as an example, I'd be in favour of proper smoking facilities built where they were supposed to be and smoke away fromn the front doors instead of the halfarsed stab at a few benches in the open and some mushrooms under the canopy which no-one is ever going to use.

vote4pedro wrote: »

I'm fully aware I am putting words in to your mouth and apologise for doing so, but you certainly seem to "tow the line" anytime I've noticed your posting, but feel free to correct me. What I'm saying is that it's far too simple to say its a chicken and egg situation, that leads to the current attitude being adopted by the upper brass which cracks down on the above sort of thing, I'm sure you agree.
That's the attitude currently adopted, and look where we are: buses being wrecked, people drinking to excess, fire alarms ripped out, feeling like you're walking through East Berlin with the amount of security, an incredible lack of atmosphere and sense of fun around the place....the list goes on.

I would agree with a lot of this alright, and I would especially agree with Sean_K, the response to a lot of the stuff you mentioned should be targeted enforcement, not a blanket crackdown. What exactly would you do to address these problems mentioned?

jojoucd

Heard there were to be better guest policies introduced with the gates this year. We have spent years banging on about the lack of security and now it is being addressed we protest and lose out on the benefits!!!

muffinman

Tayto2000 wrote: »

You're in third level, yes? You didn't for example have to enter the labour force straight after school?

:rolleyes: come on...

Frisbee

Tayto2000 wrote: »

You're in third level, yes? You didn't for example have to enter the labour force straight after school?

Are you for real?

liamygunner29

anyone who has lived on campus will know like I do that more than half the R.As are on a serious power trip where common sense is rarley applied, for example this evening me and my mates where playing football outside and told we wernt aloud now this is bad enough but as like many first years im confused by this strike and i tought him been a 3rd year cud help so I asked him "should we go to college tomorrow?" to which he replied "i dont give a ****, just stop playing football" how bad is that? this has left me and other residents sick of there attitude and i admit that responding through more aggresive parties and actions is petty, its how students seem to retiliate.

and in regards to siginin people in, whos going be bringin a girl home and run into the office to sign her in??

passive

to which he replied "i dont give a ****, just stop playing football" how bad is that?

I don't give a **** either. I guess it's pretty bad...

and in regards to siginin people in, whos going be bringin a girl home and run into the office to sign her in??

If this is too much hassle for you, your priorities are all wrong.

Leprachaun

dyl10 wrote: »

You were making the same defense of those idiots with the snow.
Maybe you should still be in secondary school?

No,maybe I should be in college since I have already completed seconday school. Just because I don't get pissed off every time someone has a bit of fun,it doesn't mean I don't want to further my education.

Leprachaun

vote4pedro wrote: »

You strike me as being the type of person in primary school likely to come out with "Teacher, teacher, john hasn't got his homework done".

How do you know I'm privileged?

Look at how Trinity works, no snow riots, their <snip> passess off without people needing to wreck their beautiful college grounds, no buses being smashed to bits by students. So why does that happen at UCD? Is it because a fundamentally different type of Irish early twenties student goes there? Of course not.

But look at the way Trinity treat their students; allowed drink cans from their student bar, no constant intimidating security, students being trusted to run their <snip> in a grown up manner (you'd swear its a G20 job when the UCD ball is on with the restrictions, security, limitations across campus). The result is that immature students dont need to seize every opportunity to lash out and act the maggot. It reminds me of when you went in to 6th year in school, suddenly the messers who were constantly trying to get on teachers nerves, refusing to go along with anything, get treated with a bit more respect and more like adults and it placates them. Of course everyone should be able to act like that, but its human nature that there will be people who do need to be 'coerced' in that way. Instead restrict late bars on campus to once every x months, and watch everyone go absolutely mental at the idea of a rare opportunity "to go crazy."

But let me guess, you'd be against cans in the bar (we've a drinking culture that simply shouldn't be encouraged and so the only way of cracking down on it is to restrict can drinking), you want the bold boys to smoke on the island in the lake (it was you who claimed to be able to smell smoke in the upper floors of the Arts block, and likened it to be people walking in human waste, right?), you're probably for the overly restrictive security and policing at events like UCD Ball that we've seen in recent years (what if someone trips and has an accident), gonna have a punt that you're all for students being banged up for drinking cans by the secret lake on a nice day (those hooligans are breaching numerous environmental littering codes).

I'm fully aware I am putting words in to your mouth and apologise for doing so, but you certainly seem to "tow the line" anytime I've noticed your posting, but feel free to correct me. What I'm saying is that it's far too simple to say its a chicken and egg situation, that leads to the current attitude being adopted by the upper brass which cracks down on the above sort of thing, I'm sure you agree.
That's the attitude currently adopted, and look where we are: buses being wrecked, people drinking to excess, fire alarms ripped out, feeling like you're walking through East Berlin with the amount of security, an incredible lack of atmosphere and sense of fun around the place....the list goes on.

Instead of perhaps looking at WHY we have those problems, we get people bleating on about bull**** health&safety rules, agreeing with current restrictions, encouraging greater restrictions, and instead whinging about vital issues like a sign for the Restaurant not also being as gaeilge.


Summary for tl;dr: when bad shít happens on campus people say OMG this is why you need earlier closing times/no cans/greater security/DNA swabbing of students/checkpoints in to the res...and yet bad shít continues to happen. Why not change that approach which clearly isn't working, to the approach adopted by another college fifteen minutes away that doesn't have these problems.

Stick it to the man.

liamygunner29

passive wrote: »

I don't give a **** either. I guess it's pretty bad...

In fairness mate, whats the point in replying if thats all you have to say like?? never a first year? its people like you that people cant stand always taking the high ground. Get over yourself, I was just recalling an earlier incident and if you think that R.As should be worried about stuff like football, while been ignorant to students who paid good money to stay here, than maybe you should consider applying for the job. Im sure your self-righteousness will fit right in with the rest. Don't get me wrong there is reasonable and good r.as but I can't see you being the most popular.

passive wrote: »

if this is too much hassle for you, your priorities are all wrong.

you are an idiot. Maybe your too smart and busy too be pulling girls but as a first year and im sure most of my friends and neighbours would agree bringing ladies home should be very high on our priorities list.

Finally Im not intrested in a big speel of a response, trying to like all cool and putting me down.

Kat Slater

I'm all for treating people like adults, but TBH the kind of immature idiot who rips fire alarms out of the wall is more than likely going to act like that anyway, whether free cans are offered in the bar or not.

passive

liamygunner29 wrote: »

In fairness mate, whats the point in replying if thats all you have to say like?? never a first year? its people like you that people cant stand always taking the high ground. Get over yourself, I was just recalling an earlier incident and if you think that R.As should be worried about stuff like football, while been ignorant to students who paid good money to stay here, than maybe you should consider applying for the job. Im sure your self-righteousness will fit right in with the rest. Don't get me wrong there is reasonable and good r.as but I can't see you being the most popular.

In fairness, "mate," there are plenty of better places to play football, like the big f*ckoff field 20 feet from most of the residences, and you were probably being a loud douchebag and disturbing people who were trying to get some work done. I have no desire or intention to be an RA, but I'm immeasurably glad to know I wouldn't be popular with people like you if I did go for that kind of job.

Do you think maybe he was looking out for all the other students who paid good money to stay there, and were trying to study?

liamygunner29 wrote: »

you are an idiot. Maybe your too smart and busy too be pulling girls but as a first year and im sure most of my friends and neighbours would agree bringing ladies home should be very high on our priorities list.

Finally Im not intrested in a big speel of a response, trying to like all cool and putting me down.

I have no need whatsoever to be pulling random girls at the minute, I'm happy to say, but if I did, I wouldn't be put out by the hassle of having to sign someone in, or plan ahead, or pay a small fee, or whatever. I'd care about getting laid. That's what I meant about your priorities being wrong