What a curious departure the editorial of the last issue turned out to be. While "Salient" must be open to student opinion surely future aspirants to the editorial column will be required to present those opinions in a coherent manner. I gather that the writer wishes to avoid "sex and grime," he objects to the Association sponsoring "a mag, and show of smutty repute." he wants some moral policing on the campus—he tosses in the cable-car affair (apparently believing the "Evening Post" exaggerations) as an unrelated side-issue. He seems to think those who produced "Cappicadc" and Extrav. were a corrupting influence, as well as wasting their time. We can hardly accept all of this. Consider these two productions as they are, not as seen by the writer. I fear he has been misled, as he suggests subsequent generations will be, on very tenuous grounds; (he added that the smutty reputation was not 100 per cent, justified, himself). He has made, in fact, the sweeping assumption that license means depravity—a supposition as suspect as the conjunction of "sex and grime".

I suggest that he considers the idea that, far from having some benevolent despotic authority (he mentions the Association—does he mean the Exec.?) to discipline these riotous proclivities, thus removing license (which means freedom, but not usually lust) he should remember that in order to grow up it is necessary to find out our own standards and to accept discipline, not of an arbitrary and imposed nature, but from within? It is not by accident that the Association has only ever disciplined such few offenders who have been unable to accept such a premise.

He suggests that "Canpicade" be modelled on "Punch" and the "New Yorker". (An odd juxtaposition: it leads me to believe he can never have read either or at best only one; as their styles are most dissimilar.) I, for one, should most certainly refrain from reading "Cappicade" if its humour was modelled on that of "Punch", which is either so precious as to elude many people, or presents the opinion that the man who slips on a banana-skin is funny, but if he breaks his neck while doing so, it s simply side-splitting.

On the other hand, the "New Yorker" is not always meant to be funny, a-ha. I would remind "SAL" that that model of strained (and distinctly un-funny) reporting. Hersey's "Hiroshima" first appeared in, and was in fact commissioned by the "New Yorker". True, there are cartoons—but so are these cartoons in the "Auckland Weekly News"—not normally quoted as a humorous periodical. Some of the cartoons in the "New Yorker" actually have men and women in them too. It also has columns of criticism devoted to the arts: it has articles: it prints better-than-average short stories.

And finally—what of "Cappicade" Fifty-seven? (I should state here and now that I do not suffer from the delusion that sex cannot be funny). I thought there were fewer than average sniggers behind the hand and more honest laughs. (I liked "We hope its a boy." best): I found three articles modelled on one of America's most delightful humorists—I must remember to look up his answer to the query "Is Sex Necessary sometime. I was delighted to meet an old friend of mine from the "Saturday Evening Post" at a football match: I agreed that beer in cubesh is a good idea—in fact, the more I consider the sweeping editorial statements, the stronger become the conclusions that this may well be a similar case to that in the story of the Army psychiatrist and the private (you must have heard it—the catch-line goes "But I always think of sex") or more charitably, that perhaps he hasn't read "Cappicade" either.

May I amend J. T. Devine's penultimate sentence (with no apology) "Let this editorial be the last"—of such a standard.—T.P.