The Andie

[someone]

Quoting thackary from 14:27, 13th May 2006
Thanks for offering a more concrete quote.
What was the bit about reformed drug-takers?

Here's the entire section of the article.

"At a recent meeting of the SRC, it was discussed whether or not the Union should reffuse to allow blood drives in the building, because homosexuals are not allowed to donate blood. Instead of focusing on real discrimination against them, the SRC chose to make a red herring out of what is, by all accounts, sound medical policy. Many people are not permitted to donate blood, and these decisions are based on conservative assessments (regarding the well-being of) the population at large. Neither political correctness, nor prejudice, should be allowed to trump medical science.

"Not a single person at this meeting raised an objection to reformed intravenous drug users being allowed to donate blood, but I cannot say that I am surprised: far too much of the Union's time is taken up with trying to sound 'pc'. Blood drives are a national and moral necessity, and any representative even contemplating banning them from the Union should be shown the nearest exit, ideally a second-floor window. Is moral cowardice what we're all supposed to be 'Doing'? (referring to "Do Stuff.")

Sadly, this example is typical of many, if not most, of the efforts of the SRC and the Association. Instead of tackling fairly straightforward tasks that would benefit nearly every student (why is it that I have to wait until the tenth week of an eleven-week semester for my exam schedule and, thus, my travel plans?), political correctness and feathering one's nest rules the day. "

[Thackary]

I'll get a copy on Monday

[pew]

Quoting thackary from 14:05, 13th May 2006

I haven't got a copy with me (perhaps I can still buy one?) but I remember reading a bit that said something along the lines of "we didn't go with the Union because they'd control what we say" (obviously not be word for word, but that's what I read into it - perhaps someone would like to correct me).

It said...

'It was also important for us not to be affiliated with the Union. Largely, because we don't see how any student publication would be able to practice independent and uncensored journalism with such institution. It seems to me, that much of the business of the day involves Union officials (just how many of them are there?) and their ilk indulging in bureaucratic masturbation and outrages cronyism'

It is then claimed that Tom D'Ardenne was 'installed' as president in an attempt not to upset the residents of John Burnett and that...

'those hearing the appeal knew they had more to gain by installing a president who owed his office to them, then by sticking to their guns and doing what was right, and thereby run the risk of allowing someone actually interested in reform to be elected'

I would also like to add that many of the 'features' are found in the Saint - the social stereotypes, babe of the month, the month in pictures.... and although not a 'fan' of the saint myself - the 'features' articles in the saint are 1000 times better written and more imaginative.

Disclaimer: All grammatical errors found in the quotes are copied directly from the magazine.

[Adam Fellows]

Quoting someone from 14:34, 13th May 2006
Instead of tackling fairly straightforward tasks that would benefit nearly every student (why is it that I have to wait until the tenth week of an eleven-week semester for my exam schedule and, thus, my travel plans?), political correctness and feathering one's nest rules the day. "

I suppose this falls under my remit. If the article author would like (which I presume s/he does), I'll look into it and tell them why the situation is as it is and if there is any hope in rectifying it for future diets.

Again, something I have pointed out on other threads, please email us, it makes it easier - I don't want to have to read the Sinner or buy student publications just to find out what these issues are.

Sorry, Preston, not a rant aimed at you, just been a rough day, that's all.

[someone]

Quoting Adam Fellows from 14:44, 13th May 2006Sorry, Preston, not a rant aimed at you, just been a rough day, that's all.

Hey, I didn't write the article. I'm not bothered at all!

I hear copies will be on sale again early next week as I have it on very good authority that the staff have exams coming up. I recommend y'all go out and buy some!

[Guest]

I agree - I can imagine the saint staff rolling around on the floor with laughter.

[Guest]

Have you guys ever heard of tongue-in-cheek?

That's the magazine in essence. It's a laugh, which is the entire point.

Now ease off, take a deep breath, and stop being personally offended by what really doesn't matter.

If you don't like it, don't read it. Simple as that. At least someone put something together.

(Of course, I will say that there should have been some much closer editing... I'm pretty sure I came across a few sentences that, well... weren't. Oh, well.)

[Guest]

I think a lot of you miss the point--- the Andie takes the piss, intentionally. The Luvians Bag article, for example, is designed to ridicule its readership, who usually have to have the latest coach or prada bag. The DuPont lighter article, as well as the "Jolly German" article have similar intentions.

I will confess that the magazine appeals to a certain demographic--- namely, the several hundred students who know the writers and editorial staff. However, it has other useful tidbits: reviewing three superb edinburgh restaurants, some tasty recipes, and what the differences are between Pimms 1, 3, and 6.

Now if most of you don't give a damn (or know) about any of this, then perhaps you ought to hang out with cooler people.

[curious]

Are there any still on sale? Where and when are they on sale? I want to see if it is as bad as some are saying.

[thePontificator]

Oh I see, it's a magazine written for the people who write it and their friends, and no-one else. It's all so in-jokey and subtle that no-one else will get it! HAH! All the evidence in this post certainly seems to bear that out!

I stand by my previous statement. Furthermore, I'd like to say that if you are going to have a tongue in cheek magazine, at least make sure people know it's meant to be tongue in cheek so we can distinguish it from the ramblings of a cliquey bunch of up themselves twats.

[killbill]

Quoting thePontificator from 16:15, 13th May 2006
Oh I see, it's a magazine written for the people who write it and their friends, and no-one else. It's all so in-jokey and subtle that no-one else will get it! HAH! All the evidence in this post certainly seems to bear that out!

I stand by my previous statement. Furthermore, I'd like to say that if you are going to have a tongue in cheek magazine, at least make sure people know it's meant to be tongue in cheek so we can distinguish it from the ramblings of a cliquey bunch of up themselves twats.

i have to say i agree.

The magazine is, in places, obviously supposed to be tongue and cheek, then else where it attempts to take itself seriously. an incomplete success in the truest sense. result is confused, and confusing!

what a shit argument someone posted earlier,'well ofcourse you dont understand it, you're hanging out with the wrong ppl'.

if that is the case, then why distribute outside the library, where the majority of the passing students are not yahs( even though it often feels like they are)? why not just take a box round to coke parties?

[David Bean]

I don't know anything about the rest of the magazine, but those extracts that were listed here (which, before anyone complains, seem most definitely to have been masquerading as serious opinions) were rather silly.

The concerns expressed about blood transfusions were that the exclusion doesn't restrict those who've been engaging in unprotected hetrosexual sex within a period when infections wouldn't show up in screens, not that homosexuals should be allowed to give blood under any cirsumstances for the sake of political correctness - it was a stance taken primarily on the issue of public safety.

Meanwhile, their claim about how "Union officials" (what are we, a dockyard?) spend their time provides little evidence of any investigation into the matter, and so far as Tom D'Ardenne is concerned, I'd like to know what, precisely, the writer thought Ann Kettle - the chair of the Association's Board, and an academic - had to gain from reinstating him if she didn't think it was right to do so.

Silly people.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[pew]

Quoting from 14:08, 13th May 2006
I think a lot of you miss the point--- the Andie takes the piss, intentionally.

See Thackary's earlier post - I think he has a point here....

If the point is to be 'tounge in cheek' or 'ridicule the readership', in my opinion it is not done very well. Not very clever, imaginative nor funny.

[b]I will confess that the magazine appeals to a certain demographic--- namely, the several hundred students who know the writers and editorial staff.

That's not a very good business strategy...oh and I know many of the writers and editorial staff.

[b]Now if most of you don't give a damn (or know) about any of this, then perhaps you ought to hang out with cooler people.

Come on now...this is a little pathetic...

[b]Now ease off, take a deep breath, and stop being personally offended by what really doesn't matter.

If you don't like it, don't read it. Simple as that. At least someone put something together.

Another great attitude, from what I presume is a member of the editorial committee...the magazine is a great idea - I would love a fun monthly magazine on all that is St Andrews but take a step back - look at how the magazine has portrayed itself in its first issue - think for a moment what a future employer would think when reading the magazine - listen to the criticism and take it on board and build on it for next time.