Disclaimer

(To the Editor.)

Sir.—Sympathetic as I am towards your need for good and interesting copy for Salient, I feel I must ask an apology of you for an incorrect reference to me appearing on page 3 of Salient's issue of February 23.

As a journalist, may I remind Salient (usually so willing, often justifiably, to condemn the rest of the world's Press) of the absolute necessity for accuracy in its reporting. Congredients, after Mr. Combs, were at any rate convinced of this.

As a political science student, may I suggest that if attempts be made to tabulate student voting at Curious Cove or elsewhere, they should be made by competent observers who can and do distinguish yea from nay.

And as a student who happens to know no more than the average student about W.F.D.Y., I should like to state that, far from voting in favour of the affiliation of N.Z.U.S.A. with that body, as Salient reported, I on the contrary seconded a motion that consideration of affiliation be deferred until N.Z.U.S.A. had sent a representative to the triennial congress of the federation this year. Since this motion was, after discussion, ruled out of order as contradicting the original motion, I am scarcely likely to have voted for the latter.—Yours etc..

Pauline M. Hoskins.

P.S.: No, I hold no grudge against Salient for the verbatim report of portion of my remarks—it sounds to me a most faithful reproduction.

[We are very sorry, Pauline, for getting your affiliations all mixed up.—Ed.]

Again

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—A certain person writing under the name of Veritas, accuses me of being a paper waster merely because I wrote an article on the subject of religion, which was published in Salient last year. I admit the said article was not a masterpiece of journalism, but, you see, I never intended it to be so. Its whole purpose was to start a discussion on religion, through Salient's columns, a laudable intent if I interpret Veritas correctly. Why then does he not answer the points made in my unfortunate article instead of condemning it out of hand. Perhaps the discussing has been done from the wrong point of view and perhaps—nay, I fear—Veritas cannot answer adequately.

—Swen.

Psychopathies?

Sir,—I would like to suggest to the Department of Psychology that interesting material for research into undeveloped personalities is available within, and on, the walls of Victoria. Ink and Primer 4 printing were used by self-styled artists to scribble across posters already colourfully and competently done by an outside commercial artist.

"This, I think," as Sherlock Holmes would say, "has all the appearances of vandalism."

What! Vandalism! In these sacred precincts? Surely only unintelligent, unoccupied louts indulge in such infantile ways of asserting their egos. The fact remains, however, that certain club posters on the notice boards were defaced, which indicates that those responsible are either unintelligent or psychopathic and in neither case are fit to be at university. (If the people concerned are uncertain to which category they belong. I advise them to consult the Department of Psychology immediately.)

If the "boys from up the hill" scrawl on posters, the uneducated can scarcely be blamed for trampling on tulips.

—Art Critic.