Volume 94, Issue 43
Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2000
Letters to the Editor
Re: A letter concerning sober restraint, Nov 9.
To the Editor:
How is it that Andrew Thomas finds himself able to justify his view arguing that students should be able to "understand the assigned work material any way we want and not be told how to do so?"
If this were the case, maybe I should decide not to write five term papers. Perhaps Thomas would suggest I disregard my professors' course outlines altogether and decide to obtain my marks on my terms.
The truth is, if you don't like the work assigned or the mark allocation of a class, you can either stick it out and deal with it, or drop the course appealing to its "complete and utter BS" content. As far as classes with a participation mark allocation, I would opt for the former and I'll tell you why.
The use of class discussion brings many views to the class' focus, allows students to see other ways of thinking and, at the same time answers questions that you yes even you Mr. Thomas probably have. Being an alumni of both of the courses that Thomas focuses on, Business 020 and 257, I fully realize the importance that class discussion plays and the reasons for this are the same as those Thomas himself recognizes. Both that participation is vital to success in these case method courses and that it prepares people for the real business world.
Now, I do agree that many, if not all jobs do not have a salary allocation of 10 per cent based on participation per se, nor do I expect 50 per cent of my future salary to be based on a written essay every couple of months. But the fact is, if class discussion and participation is seen as an integral part of the education process, then so be it.
The only advice I have to offer Thomas is that he steer clear of any seminar courses that may be open to him in his third or fourth years, as I am sure he will be unhappy with the 20-30 per cent allocated to class participation in them. We're paying for an education yes, but it is based on how this university chooses to administer it.
Re: Limblifter sets the record straight, Oct. 27.
To The Editor:
The Gazette's story "Limblifter Sets The Record Straight," was an excellent example of the poor journalistic practices I have witnessed in the paper this year.
The final third of the article recounts the events surrounding the band's outdoor O-Week 2000 performance, but only from the perspective of the band. To say that the three members of Limblifter were the most arrogant, abusive, wanna-be rock stars of all the bands I have encountered, is being polite.
After the show began the band's drummer, Kurt Dahle, claimed our sound technician was incompetent, although nothing had changed in his mix from the afternoon soundcheck. This resulted in Kurt throwing a drumstick at the sound technician, striking him squarely in the head. The technician had to be relieved and another sound tech took over. There was absolutely no mention of this incident in The Gazette article of Oct. 27.
Furthermore, the sound tech that was struck in the head is a 20-year veteran of this business and has done sound for such artists as Kim Mitchell, N'SYNC and The Tragically Hip, among others bands who actually are rock stars. If not for the easy-going nature of the sound technician, the thrown drumstick could have resulted in a call to the police and a charge of assault.
I have no patience for any band who thinks they can come here and behave in such an arrogant and abusive manner. The Gazette article states that the band has decided not to play on campus again. Perhaps that was a result of my having advised them that they would never again play at Western.
I was never contacted for comment when this story was written. This demonstrates a clear lack of professionalism on the part of The Gazette. My only remaining dilemma at this point is deciding which group, The Gazette staff or Limblifter, is the least professional when practicing their chosen craft.
Mark A. MacLellan
Manager, Entertainment Productions
University Students' Council
Re: Challenge for smokers, Nov. 14.
To the Editor:
I have been smoking for 5 years, yet I do not feel that I am the least bit "short-sighted," nor do I find smoking to be "worthwhile."
But, I am addicted.
Like anyone with an addiction, I know the damage cigarettes may cause, but it seems to be an unstoppable act.
To me, smoking can be summed us as an oral fixation and association. I have tried quitting, but found myself constantly eating not out of hunger, but for the feeling of bringing something to my mouth. Food does not contain the necessary ingredient: nicotine.
Association also comes into play with regards to smoking. I associate smoking with everything I do: Talking on the phone, driving, drinking alcohol or coffee, after finishing a meal it's never ending.
Smoking is a drug like any other it makes you feel better when you use it. How often do people drink? Smoke a joint? Do E? I don't mean to pick on Masterson, but there are a lot of things that people do knowing that it is harmful to them.
I just don't appreciate the comment that I or any smoker is short-sighted. Please let me know when nicotine filled Oreos hit the market.
Social Science I
Copyright © The Gazette 2000