Saint editorial

[David Bean]

That's an excellent point of rhetoric, but it has precious little to do with reality. Until you've been there, been attacked yourself on a public notice board, you can't possibly know how it feels or how impossible it is not to respond, but instead let the records show their slanders go unchallenged. Anyway, I disagree with you. As I said before, I think a good dose of honesty and straightforwardness would do all of us the power of good.

[hr]"For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?- Matthew 16:26

[RJ Covino]

[s]David Bean wrote on 20:04, 30th Mar 2005:
I think a good dose of honesty and straightforwardness would do all of us the power of good.

In that case, please detail the entire story behind your apparent conflict with the previous Communications Secretary.

[Anon.]

[s]Mr Comedy wrote on 15:59, 29th Mar 2005:
I would also reccomend that those who cannot behave in proper company at an after-debate dinner should really not be allowed entry to the meal. If they bring the society into disrepute and mean that we are not allowed to dine at the establishment any more (consider the Oak Rooms), then we ought to not grant them entry again.

Are you talking about me?

[Partizan]

So far as I know, we were not banned from the Oak Rooms. What the situation actually is like follows:

1) The Oak Rooms did charge us 40 pounds extra, for two extra places that were not used. So, boo for them.

2) The Society has also been advised by people at the Union not to use the Oak Rooms for future dinners, thanks to their lack of disabled access.

But unless anyone can tell me otherwise, we were not banned.

[Al]

[s]David Bean wrote on 20:04, 30th Mar 2005:
As I said before, I think a good dose of honesty and straightforwardness would do all of us the power of good.


It doesn't have to be done in public though, does it? Which is the point I think Cain was making. It is not one with which I necessarily agree though. Within reason, I love to see the Society air its dirty laundry in public. Although, it is a bit like watching a soap opera where one doesn't know any of the main characters.

[hr]
Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[David Bean]

Actually, Alex Jennings and I are on such good terms that the only conflict we have been involved with was when she videoed me having a shoot fight with Mr Nicholson.

[hr]"For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?- Matthew 16:26

[Midget]

One of the funniest pieces of film ever. Just WHY were you fighting David it was just so weird?

[David Bean]

We were watching WWE No Way out: Ben, Alex, my friend Richard and I. I can't remember how the conversation turned, but it ended up with Ben and I challenging one another to a fight, there and then. Richard decided to referee, and Alex, showing more presence of mind than I've ever seen from anyone, started to film it.

Then, I decided to put it up on a spoof section of Laura's campaign web site - why not, I thought? I had the space and the bandwidth all paid for, and people wanted to see it.

As I always say, I'll do anything to entertain people, irrespective of my own self-dignity

[hr]"For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?- Matthew 16:26

[Alex Jennings]

I certainly count it as one of my legacies of this year.

[Midget]

legacies What are your other ones pray tell? (Not being sarcastic but curious)

[David Bean]

Well, I think getting the minutes of my term off John Roberts ranks pretty highly

[hr]"For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?- Matthew 16:26

[annonymous1]

[s]Al wrote on 22:53, 31st Mar 2005:
[s]David Bean wrote on 20:04, 30th Mar 2005:
As I said before, I think a good dose of honesty and straightforwardness would do all of us the power of good.



It doesn't have to be done in public though, does it? Which is the point I think Cain was making. It is not one with which I necessarily agree though. Within reason, I love to see the Society air its dirty laundry in public. Although, it is a bit like watching a soap opera where one doesn't know any of the main characters.


This goes for all you gossip-mongers (such as the individual above).

Surely guys, you must start to at least try to listen to all the comments you are getting.

And take them seriously. Not reply with the same style as some other people with the same number of years as your good selves - the point? When will we realise that talking crap is not respectable, is not constructive and just wastes time.

It's also bloody well not British.

It is however, quite American. (This is an example of what I'm talking about, and is in no way meant seriously, or to cause offence - if you are offended, I suggest a course in de-sensitisation, spelt the English way).

During my time in Oxford and Cambridge (A levels in cambridge, Diploma in Oxford at which both uni's I attended their debates) public attacks on the matter of someone else's character were unspokenly outlawed - unless of course they held an appropriate level of general good humouredness, and did not cause offence.

The extent to which some of you enjoy arguing is good, nay great, but I can tell you this - for some of you the attraction does lie a bit too much in cat calling, jibing and general drivvling of crap which makes no difference to the world at large. For me just having the balls to stand up and (as a much older member of the student population) tell you all to grow up a bit, stop going on at length about meaningless drivvle, and to start talking about some things that really do matter (world poverty, the spread of inequality, how to best incorporact business and politics etc etc), I know I will be jousted from all corners in the same said style that I am campaigning against. If you want to be treated as the world class society that you champion yourselves to be, then start acting like one. Stop appearing so 'wounded' by childish and silly comments and start getting serious. You're a bunch of wafflers, it is true by virtue of that which you wish to do (i.e.speak) but if you must waffle, then by gum, do it well. And by waffle, I mean speak - in general.

My dear Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen, please, I ask you only this:-

Stop talking so much shit, and lets get down to business.

I do apologise for the language, but it makes a point, and makes it felt.
-----
Focus is a virtue, detraction from the mode at hand is not.

[John Stewart]

These boards would be rather dull if all we did was discuss "world poverty".

Leave that for the chamber.

On the flip side though, these discussions are getting increasingly personal and bad natured unlike my rants of old with Mr Joss. It's one thing to criticise policies, another to criticise people.

[Al]

Gossipmonger? I don't see how reading others' posts makes me a gossipmonger.

Leaving aside the barely literate nature of your post, it was highly entertaining to see you attack what you consider to be meaningless drivel through the use of your own meaningless drivel.

[hr]Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[annonymous1]

[s]Al wrote on 13:23, 5th Apr 2005:
Gossipmonger? I don't see how reading others' posts makes me a gossipmonger.

Leaving aside the barely literate nature of your post, it was highly entertaining to see you attack what you consider to be meaningless drivel through the use of your own meaningless drivel.



Firstly, I apologise for not being clear - I was talking about the gossipmongers of which you were talking in your post. No no, you were certainly not being so, but you did stoop to their level by attacking myself back again.

Honour and dignity are two qualities rarely seen to be exercised these days, and you, sir, do not have dignity in your posts. (read on)

Attack meaningless drivel through the use of said drivel? Really?

Now, before you go on with yet more meaningless drivel, all I am doing is putting forward the notion that the Debating Society, as muchly loved by all as it is, also must realise (as a whole, not in parts or parts, or, for that matter, only through the actions of certain individuals) that there is such a thing a public opinion and that, unless you do realise this, it will follow you on and on after you leave this institution.



I like bitching just as much as the other wallers, that much is obvious, but I'll try to do it in a fashion, and not be ruff (no, not rough, ruff) about it.

Now think, how would it be if you were to not take it personally? - indeed you are trying to attack my very personage, but I shall not stoop to you, sir, I shall, however offer you my condolences that you see fit not to be able to see past your own interests onto those of the whole.

Those are my interests, and nothing more. I am too old to take life too seriously, and too old to take the drivelling incarcerations offered to me by your good self as serious either.

I do however want to see this Society flourish - and I will do so if it means trying to show a few things along the
way, such as the lack of need for personal public displays of 'dirty laundry' as you so wistfully put it.

I was, Al, trying to agree with you, however, I just feel stronger about the whole thing - and not a bit personate over it. (sorry, that was an obscure and little used example od personate, correct, nevertheless, but obscure).

I will proffer no more, you have been hastened, I hope.

Good day, and good luck.
[hr]
Stop ctying like babies, do something worthwile.

[annonymous1]

[s]annonymous1 wrote on 14:59, 5th Apr 2005:
[s]Al wrote on 13:23, 5th Apr 2005:[i]
Gossipmonger? I don't see how reading others' posts makes me a gossipmonger.

Leaving aside the barely literate nature of your post, it was highly entertaining to see you attack what you consider to be meaningless drivel through the use of your own meaningless drivel.



Firstly, I apologise for not being clear - I was talking about the gossipmongers of which you were talking in your post. No no, you were certainly not being so, but you did stoop to their level by attacking myself back again.

Honour and dignity are two qualities rarely seen to be exercised these days, and you, sir, do not have dignity in your posts. (read on)

Attack meaningless drivel through the use of said drivel? Really?

Now, before you go on with yet more meaningless drivel, all I am doing is putting forward the notion that the Debating Society, as muchly loved by all as it is, also must realise (as a whole, not in parts or parts, or, for that matter, only through the actions of certain individuals) that there is such a thing a public opinion and that, unless you do realise this, it will follow you on and on after you leave this institution.

I will proffer no more, you have been hastened, I hope.

I like bitching just as much as the other wallers, that much is obvious, but I'll do it in a fashion, and not be ruff (no, not rough, ruff) about it.

Now think, how would it be if you were to not take it personally? - indeed you are trying to attack my very personage, but I shall not stoop to you, sir, I shall, however offer you my condolences that you see fit not to be able to see past your own interests onto those of the whole.

Those are my interests, and nothing more. I am too old to take life too seriously, and too old to take the drivelling incarcerations offered to me by your good self as serious either.

I do however want to see this Society flourish - and I will do so if it means trying to show a few things along the
way, such as the lack of need for personal public displays of 'dirty laundry' as you so wistfully put it.

I was, Al, trying to agree with you, however, I just feel stronger about the whole thing - and not a bit personate over it. (sorry, that was an obscure and little used example od personate, correct, nevertheless, but obscure).

[hr]
Stop ctying like babies, do something worthwile.
[/i]

[exnihilo]

[s]annonymous1 wrote on 14:59, 5th Apr 2005:
Firstly, I apologise for not being clear...

Verbosity rarely is.

I was, Al, trying to agree with you, however, I just feel stronger about the whole thing - and not a bit personate over it. (sorry, that was an obscure and little used example od personate, correct, nevertheless, but obscure).

I will proffer no more, you have been hastened, I hope.


More strongly, surely? Hastened? Personate? If it is obscure, it's so obscure the OED doesn't acknowledge it, indeed acknowledges no sense in which personate can be used as an adjective. Personal, while not obscure, will more aptly meet the case.

[Caepio]

[s]annonymous1 wrote on 14:59, 5th Apr 2005:
I will proffer no more, you have been hastened, I hope.


Thank god for that, you "annonymous" tosser. When we want your opinion, we'll rattle your cage. Until then, do be quiet. There's a good boy.

[Al]

annonymous1,

I misunderstood your meaning. For that, I apologise.

As for the rest of my post, I stand by it.

[hr]Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[Cain]

chastened?