page 7

Where are Pettipoints of yesteryear?

Sir,—I would suggest that the writer of your column, "Insight," adopt a more suitable pseudonym. The first part of the column showed an amazing idealism about Grand Establishment. GE can be considered a noble, charitable organisation; equally feasibly it appears as a boozing club, or a formalised power clique—it depends on now you look at it.

In actual fact I suspect it is a mixture of self-contradictory aspects. And with such a multi - schizoid organisation, the only way of judging it is by its results.

Well, so far. GE has run a boozy—sorry, licensed—dance which has probably permanently alienated the Montmartre and the student body. A net profit of £20 was made, £10 of which was given to the Strongman Mine Disaster Fund; the other £10 was "ploughed back" in the words of Mr. Lawrence. GE secretary.

Nearly all of this year's Capping Committee are reputed to be in GE: most commendable, although I believe that Capping Committee was in existence before GE was founded. GE's snide attempt to undermine the VUW Film Society can hardly be described as aiding student vitality and activity.

Finally, membership in GE appears to be based on who you know, not on ability; this is directly contrary to the principles of the Students' Association.

Incidentally, I suspect Miss Markham is even more fascinated than I am at being described as a courageous little man.

As for the other parts of the column: Cynic's comments on the sad plight of Auckland University are remarkably pompous, and his valedictory for Ken Cresswell, while well-deserved, is cheapened by being in such a poorly-done column. Where are the Pettipoints of yesteryear?

Your columnist has mistaken sarcasm for cynicism; I suggest he be renamed "Priggy."

Geoff Rashbrooke.