60+ students occupy uni building in protest

[Guest]

I have to say, I am incredibly disappointed with the SA's handling of this situation. The fact that so many of their demands have been backed by the executive is a travesty! It never would have happened a year ago! Don't I just long for the days when Steve Savage crushed student activism under the weight of his sweating man-breasts. If he were still director of representation, he would eat a stick of butter...and then ineffectually try to stop the occupation...and then probably eat another stick of butter.

Gone are the good old days!

[

It also seems that most folks on The Sinner are not in favour of the current 'occupation,' (which I will assume is representative of the majority of the student body because that's how the sinner used to roll) I wonder how the SA has gauged actual student opinion on the matter (and I certainly wouldn't take a petition organised by the occupiers as any indication- did the occupiers tell the students signing the petition they were planning this kind of activity?) If the majority of the student body is against the occupation, why hasn't the SA called for the immediate end of it? The statement released says nothing of consequence- a possible attempt by the current Executive to support the occupiers without pissing off the University? I don't know.

Bear in mind that the Students' Association's position may well have change by the time the SSC and SRC get to discuss it on the 24th of February and 3rd of March respectively. Hopefully we won't end up with the traditional polarization of drippy hippies on one side, and miserable jaded hacks on the other.

[Freaker]

These nonsensical messageboard users happen to be a reasonable contingent of the rest of the student body that happen to disagree with what you are doing. You come on here thinking you are some sort of crusading white knight when in fact you merely come across as a child, upset that your mummy doesn't like the lovely picture you drew for her. Go back to your sleepover before you say anything else that makes you, and indeed your cause look any more foolish.

Take a step back and look at that one again. Replace "what you are doing" with "what you think about the occupation." Replace "sleepover" with "daily student life" and voilá - all that could just as much refer to the people voicing opposition to the protest on here, from the subjective perspective of the other camp... Seems like objective perspective died somewhere along this thread, if it was ever in it in the first place.

With the danger of being branded a socialist (which I'd like to think I'm not, neither am I taking part in the protest, to put that out there), both sides should keep the words of Rosa Luxembourg in mind - "Freedom is always the freedom of those who think differently to you."

[Haunted]

[
Take a step back and look at that one again. Replace "what you are doing" with "what you think about the occupation." Replace "sleepover" with "daily student life" and voilá - all that could just as much refer to the people voicing opposition to the protest on here, from the subjective perspective of the other camp.

1. We are not crusading anywhere, we did not go to them to ad hom ad naus.
2. We are not plugging a cause

[Bizarre Atheist]

In attempting to garner some non-Sinner opinions on this protest, I'm afraid our survey says:

78% What protest?
22% Oh.

Maybe this was a bad time of year to do it, I mean it is RAG Week after all.

[Freaker]

[
Take a step back and look at that one again. Replace "what you are doing" with "what you think about the occupation." Replace "sleepover" with "daily student life" and voilá - all that could just as much refer to the people voicing opposition to the protest on here, from the subjective perspective of the other camp.

1. We are not crusading anywhere, we did not go to them to ad hom ad naus.
2. We are not plugging a cause

1. When the original post refers to the protesters posting on here as crusading white knights for coming here and spending time arguing their opinion, then the people who come on here and spend time trying to counter them are probably doing the same. Referring to the collective "we" does not really help dispel that idea. I presume the bit you added in the edit means that you did not go to the protesters first to make a point - true. Arguably somebody would have done had they not done it first. And they did not post originally to crusade or say the others were wrong - but to explain what they were doing in LCH.

2. My bad, replace "cause" in the last line of the original post with "opinion", and I think we're back in the game.

[Freaker]

Yes? No? Anyone?

[777]

[
Take a step back and look at that one again. Replace "what you are doing" with "what you think about the occupation." Replace "sleepover" with "daily student life" and voilá - all that could just as much refer to the people voicing opposition to the protest on here, from the subjective perspective of the other camp.

1. We are not crusading anywhere, we did not go to them to ad hom ad naus.
2. We are not plugging a cause

1. When the original post refers to the protesters posting on here as crusading white knights for coming here and spending time arguing their opinion, then the people who come on here and spend time trying to counter them are probably doing the same. Referring to the collective "we" does not really help dispel that idea. I presume the bit you added in the edit means that you did not go to the protesters first to make a point - true. Arguably somebody would have done had they not done it first. And they did not post originally to crusade or say the others were wrong - but to explain what they were doing in LCH.

No, that was when he added the 'k' to knight to correct the spelling.

[Haunted]

1. When the original post refers to the protesters posting on here as crusading white knights for coming here and spending time arguing their opinion, then the people who come on here and spend time trying to counter them are probably doing the same. Referring to the collective "we" does not really help dispel that idea. I presume the bit you added in the edit means that you did not go to the protesters first to make a point - true. Arguably somebody would have done had they not done it first. And they did not post originally to crusade or say the others were wrong - but to explain what they were doing in LCH.

Some have explained, I refer only to the ones currently doing a disservice to their cause by charging in with ad homs about us sheltered "nonsensical" sinnertards. Arguably? Not at all, I can't imagine anyone on the sinner charging over to them to call them names (not unless they did it first), if it did happen, then by all means you can call hypocrisy, but as it hasn't, your case is weakened.

2. My bad, replace "cause" in the last line of the original post with "opinion", and I think we're back in the game.

Cause and opinion are not easily interchangeable terms. EVERYONE has opinions and, again, no one here is forcing them on anyone by squatting on someone else property. The protesters are being proactive and, as a consequence, we are being reactive. They are not the same thing.

[guest]

In attempting to garner some non-Sinner opinions on this protest, I'm afraid our survey says:

78% What protest?
22% Oh.

Maybe this was a bad time of year to do it, I mean it is RAG Week after all.

What do you mean by "our survey"? I have no idea what you're talking about...

[irish200]

No, that was when he added the 'k' to knight to correct the spelling.

Indeed, a simple typo, nothing more sinister than that.

They might not originally have posted to crusade, but they certainly are now. It is those people that I am posting towards, the ones obviously damaging the whole protest by complaining that everyone posting here against them are moronic and nonsensical.

Obviously when it comes down to it this is no more than a difference of opinion, a difference in cause, whatever. At the end of the day it is just two sets of people arguing their opinions, causes etc, and to state such a fact is just a truisim.

[Hennessy]

Going through the "MASSIVE, MASSIVE SUPPORT"" which is actually a facebook group with about 300 members, roughly, what, 5% of the student population?

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5 ... 106&ref=mf

I'm picking out all the people i know from the members list who are definitely cretins, some who are virtually hyperactive in their attention-seeking, and last but not least those that join simply to feel part of something they won't possibly ever try to comprehend.

I'm finding quite a few names!

[Freaker]

Cause and opinion are not easily interchangeable terms. EVERYONE has opinions and, again, no one here is forcing them on anyone by squatting on someone else property. The protesters are being proactive and, as a consequence, we are being reactive. They are not the same thing.

Neither are "sleepover" and "daily student life" the same thing. My point was merely a linguistic comment on how subjective elements of this debate have become; I currently have no desire to actually discuss my views on the occupation itself on an online messageboard, I have had enough of that elsewhere already. The fact that cause and opinion are not equivalent in meaning weakens my point, but I believe it is still strong enough to be made. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to bring a lot of varied viewpoints together when opposing the protesters and create that collective "we". There must be so many varied viewpoints within that group, let's hear them!

I do believe both sides would do well to try and see things from the opposing point of view and try to return to a sensible debate, maybe then personal attacks from both sides would stop (examples of attacks from protesters have been given aplenty, for the other side eg Hennessy's post just above - cretins?). And let's keep in mind that both sides have their share of ridiculous posts and arguments and let us not associate either opinion/cause/whatever you want to call it only with posts from those people.

[pambo]

Watch out Israel they are coming for you!

[Spike]

I can hardly contain my indifference about this.

[munchingfoo]

I count about 5 registered sinner users who have voiced their opinions against this occupation. (and not just commented on a specific point) 4 of these only started to contribute after all sinners had been branded fucktards, retards, sinnertards, cretins, morons, tools, and far more than I can be bothered to list.

I have made no comment regarding whether this action is a good idea or not and I myself have personally been called names. It reminds me a lot of primary school. If any "occupiers" care about the negative PR generated by this occupation then I suggest you voice your concerns over the behaviour of some of your fellow occupiers to them before it gets out of hand.

[fluffy]

...yawn...

[classydriver]

I have to say, I am incredibly disappointed with the SA's handling of this situation. The fact that so many of their demands have been backed by the executive is a travesty! It never would have happened a year ago! Don't I just long for the days when Steve Savage crushed student activism under the weight of his sweating man-breasts. If he were still director of representation, he would eat a stick of butter...and then ineffectually try to stop the occupation...and then probably eat another stick of butter.

A stick of butter. Really? Couldn't you have come up with something that makes me sounds a bit more manly? Like a 16oz steak.

[Haunted]

Going through the "MASSIVE, MASSIVE SUPPORT"" which is actually a facebook group with about 300 members, roughly, what, 5% of the student population?
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5 ... 106&ref=mf

Hmm, there also appears to be a not insignificant amount of people who aren't even within the St Andrews network let alone are students here. Quite a few from the other universities where protesting is happening, they might all be joining each others group.

Anyone have any idea how many ACTUAL st andrews students support this? It's starting to look like a lot less than I originally assumed, and were those who signed the petition aware that there was going to be this "occupation"?

[Hennessy]

In attempting to garner some non-Sinner opinions on this protest, I'm afraid our survey says:

78% What protest?
22% Oh.

Maybe this was a bad time of year to do it, I mean it is RAG Week after all.

What do you mean by "our survey"? I have no idea what you're talking about...

Sense of humour? FAIL.

[Daniel]

It's starting to look like a lot less than I originally assumed, and were those who signed the petition aware that there was going to be this "occupation"?

Well err, yes, actually.

Daniel