Volume 94, Issue 37

Friday, November 3, 2000


Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

Random target of UPD?

To the Editor:

In my best sarcastic tone, let me tell you about what I did last night. After working hard at Weldon I packed it in and walked through the tunnel to the Springett lot. On the way to my car I was briefly walking behind this woman who kept looking over her shoulder and giving me dirty looks.

Apparently by doing this I was acting suspiciously. After retrieving my gym bag I went to Campus Rec to get ready for my favourite jog around campus, a quick jog down through campus and up to the research park resulted in a complaint – apparently this is "strange" behaviour, according to the UPD.

After justifying my existence to the UPD I was allowed to continue. On the way back to the UCC, I saw a friend and we stood talking by one of those Emergency Phones that are scattered around campus. Oops another faux pas; more suspicious activity. My, my, wasn't I keeping the UPD busy?

I'm left wondering when validation for my presence and activities on campus began to come from the UPD? Would any of these activities be considered "suspicious" if I were female?

Although the UPD provides a useful service on campus they are not there to chaperone or harass individuals pursuing lawful activities on campus. Remember the burden of proof is on the officer to prove that an individual's activities are unlawful or undesirable.

Not the other way around.

Jeff P. Kilbreath
Nursing IV

Calling all Halloween lovers

To the Editor:

This may not be one of those life threatening, get your blood boiling issues, but where were all the halloween-loving people this year?

I saw hardly any of them at school. I was dressed up all day Tuesday and I saw only one other person dressed up! I was at the UCC for a couple of hours and the only festively dressed people were the cafeteria ladies.

What is going on?

Has everyone forgotten what it's like to be crazy and get dressed up just because you can? Halloween should be everyone's excuse to be a bit out of the ordinary. Maybe I'm a bit crazy, but I was dissapointed at the number of people I saw dressed up. Where were the costumes?

Jes Payne
Arts I

Spoke graffiti begs questions

To the Editor:

As usual, I snuck into The Spoke between classes to get a little reading done. By chance, nature called and I found myself taking a trip to the washroom. After locking the giant stall door, I had a few precious seconds to read all the scratched-in literature.

I often wonder, who has the time to do this. Some of the messages are big and you know they probably took some time. Was professing your love for "Buck," or whoever, really that important?

Besides that, really girls, who do you think you are impressing by declaring your love for your guy in the woman's can. Chances are, he is never going to see it.

So who are these people that get up to to the washroom, first making sure they have a pen or marker handy? Do they think of the messages before they go in, or is it kind of an "on the spot" idea.

Maybe someone can answer these buring questions for me. Regardless, thanks "Erin" for dedicating the third stall in the Spoke and one of the random tables near the stage. I know that there is somewhere I belong.

Erin McDevitt
Anthropology III

Quiet, you!

Re: New senator better deliver, Oct 26.

To the Editor:

In my opinion Paul Yeoman's letter was petty, his comments hollow and political commentary flawed.

I opposed Luke Petrykowski in last year's presidential elections and the facts are these: Petrykowski legitimately cares and wants to further the notion of political accessibility. During campaigns he speaks in cliches in the presentation of his vision instead of specifics.

Yeoman's letter seems to doubt the 580 students, who Petrykowski made "believe." Luke did a good enough job of convincing student voters of his vision and was rewarded with a seat in the Senate. By winning the most votes, Luke, his cliches and his vision deserve to be in the Senate.

He won a mandate for whatever it is he campaigned for, so back off.

Secondly, Yeoman points out that Petrykowski only secured 580 votes of the 20,000 or so Western undergrads. This is equivalent to criticizing Dave Braun for only securing 1,800 or so votes.

Low voter turnout is the fault of neither of these men. Obviously the 18,000 non-voters didn't find enough objection with Petrykowski to show up and defeat him at the ballot box.

The bottom line is that I don't support or denounce Petrykowski, because he has no voting record or job performance with which to criticize – yet.

Therefore until there is a record to evaluate to keep Yeoman's personal diatribes about Petrykowski and others to himself, he's wasting space.

Fraser Connell
Political Science III

To Contact The Opinions Department:

Copyright The Gazette 2000