Volume 94, Issue 67

Tuesday, January 23, 2001


Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

Mario column "laughable" -- Student does supplemental readings

Re: Mario Lemieux needs a reality check, Jan. 16.

To the Editor:

Jessica Leeder's article regarding Mario Lemieux's supposed superiority complex is not only ridiculous and false, but downright laughable.

In her column she says The Globe and Mail reported Sunday that Mario Lemieux thinks officiating in the NHL has been slipping over the last three years and specifically, the past two weeks.

When was this piece written – 1997? One of the reasons that Lemieux specified for his comeback was the overall improved officiating. And after being roughed up in a game recently, Lemieux shrugged it off saying physical abuse comes with being an NHL player, and if he didn't expect it, he would be in his owner's box, "drinking champagne and having a cigar." As for this supposed "article" on Lemieux, after searching The Globe and Mail Web site for said article, no article on Lemieux printed on Sunday was even found.

The column also describes Lemieux's decision to return to hockey as a "new, self-imposed, front row seat," implying that Lemieux is a burden. First off, it is not a "new" position for him. Last time I checked, he is a 13-year NHL veteran. And secondly, the Penguins want him. No doubt, 29 other NHL teams would snap him up in an instant, if possible.

Finally, the most ludicrous statement of all: Lemieux is "having a tougher time than he thought" upon returning and is inducing "sympathy and complacency" in case he fails. First game back: Three points.

After the game, Lemieux himself was surprised at his transition back to the game; 21 points in 10 games, that's 2.1 points per game. Next highest in the NHL is Zigmund Palffy, at under 1.4 points per game. Everyone in the hockey world is astounded by the results of his return.

But oh, what ever will he do when he fails?

Simon Chan
Administrative and Commercial Studies I

'Toon "insensitive" to student body

Re: Editorial cartoon, Jan. 17.

To the Editor:

I am writing this letter in regards to the Jan. 17 editorial cartoon which commented on the events at King's College on the night of Jan. 15.

Initially, I would like to commend Aaron Wherry for an informative, well-written piece of news regarding the incident at King's in which a student threatened to harm other resident students with a pellet gun. Our issue, however, is with the cartoon by Phil Arnold, in which he attempts to take a very serious and delicate situation and find humour in it.

This incident was seen as very serious by the college, by our students, and by the London Police Department. Why is it that Phil Arnold, a student of the same institution at which this occurred, shows such little compassion to the students were affected by this?

We are extremely thankful that no one was injured by this event. This in mind, it truly disappoints us to think that you enjoy exploiting those who were affected by this for a cheap laugh.

is "UWO's Daily Student Newspaper." Perhaps The Gazette should remember this before you show such insensitivity to our student body. Because, to be quite honest, no one at King's College is laughing.

Douglas Peck
Public Relations Co-ordinator
King's College Students' Council
Religious Studies III

Ed. cartoon ill-conceived

Re: Editorial cartoon, Jan. 17.

To the Editor:

I know that everyone has an opinion on what is politically correct and what isn't. I believe that the incident that occurred at King's is a serious problem. You made a joke of it with your cartoon.

When I read the article on the front page, I was in shock and a bit afraid to be a UWO student. Maybe you should be sensitive to the students at King's that were directly involved, and to students like myself who believe it is a serious problem.

What will happen if someone goes and gets a real gun? How will you feel then?

K. Baker
Social Science I

In Pring a money pit?

Re: USC eyes copy costs, Jan. 19.

To the Editor:

I find it confusing, in your Jan. 19 article "USC Eyes Copy Costs" that no mention was made of the financial performance of the USC's InPrint operation; especially from the statements made by Dave Brebner, the USC VP-finance. I've heard over the past five years, the InPrint operation has consistently lost money on an annual basis totalling $235,000.00.

Who really is cheaper?

Bruce Maslen
Manager, Custom Course Material
The Bookstore at Western

To Contact The Opinions Department:

Copyright The Gazette 2000