Special Feature - A Reply to a Reply to a Letter in" Smad"

Uninspired Newsorgan "Smad" oozing drop by drop its final lamentable conglomeration of sticky stupidity utterly collapses in its futile attempts to discredit our disinterested criticism - criticism, be it said, backed by the powerful forces of student opinion. With a characteristic evasion of the real issues these literary adolescents who control the destinies of "Smad" impudently interpret our letter as being dictated by personal animosity. Without any exceptions "Whatsoever, university office-holders from the aloof majesty of the Collage Council down to the vapping superficiality of the "Smad" staff, regard adverse criticism of their particular activities as an unmerited attack on their personal integrity. Accordingly, we were not in the least astonished by the attitude adopted in the reply to our letter.

Material:

To prove our allegation of the incompetency of "Smad's" staff we refer our readers to the dismissal of our remarks concerning the quality and arrangement of "Smad" as "quibbling in the extreme". We have always believed and continue to believe that the leading newspapers of the world regard the quality of their material and the arrangement of that material as matters of paramount importance surpassed only by the acquisition of lucrative advertising contracts. But, of course, we may be overlooking the fact that in these respects "Smad" is striving to demonstrate its originality. Hence, the staff were perfectly justified in publishing two "Nutshell Knowledges" side by side, "The Tramping Travelogues", the front-page report of a Training College Social and avery bad report of a month-old debate. (See "Smad", Vol. VII. No. 18 Columns 1 & 2 headed "Scathing Criticism' We are attacked".)

Editorials:

We based our letter on the policy of "Smad" as shown in its editorials. The staff of "Smad" has seen fit to ignore this damning indictment. We fully realise their difficulties - truth knows no denial. We therefore repeat our statement that the editorials. when not merely insipid are potently reactionary.

"Smad" May 15th. 1935:

"Smad's" staff in their reply direct our attention to the above issue "in which almost any column could have included in its caption the word hooey". We unreservedly admit that the particular issue was poor but our comparison of 1935 Smad" with 1936 Smad" is based on the general standard throughout the year. It is on this comparison that we justify our statement that the general standard of last year's "Smad" page 2 was higher and augured a more hopeful future than it does this year. Whilst on the topic of "Hooey" may we point out that in the last issue of "Smad" the inside pages (which we note are reserved for "Featured articles etc"), including the editorial and excluding our letter, are stuffed with this despised "hooey" Poisonalities indeed!!!

Exit "Smad":

In their reply the "Smad" staff assure us that they would enjoy nothing better than to witness our effort to have "Smad" discontinued by direction of a Special General Meeting of the Students' Association. With our characteristic big-heartedness and anxiety to please, we ourselves assure the that they shall not be denied this final little thrill. But we may add that the conversations we have had in Common Room, Hall and Cafeteria, convince us that the motion will be passed with unaccustomed spontaneity.

"Smad" Bows" proclaims its last editorial. Rather would we say "Smad" Scrapes, Smad Grovels, Smad Jitters, Smad Snuffs Out".

"The Leaves of Life Keep Falling One by One;

The Wine of Youth Keeps Oozing Drop by Drop".

Printed in the offices of the Students' Association, Wellington, for the publishers J,B, Aimers and J.N. Sellers and published every Thursday, 15th October, 1936,