Blue Pencil?

I am concerned that it is necessary to send contributions to "The Student" to the V.U.S.C.A. Public Relations Officer and not directly to the editor. Is there some form of censorship operating?—J.T.S.

Up Hill?

In the recent Students' Association elections. I understand that I received a larger number of second preferences than my opponent who was elected. Is this a record? Hill.

[No.—Ed.]

Wrath for Roth's Sake

After having seen the film "I'll Cry Tomorrow". I am inclined to wonder if your reviewer actually did see it. If he really thinks that it concentrates on showing the evils of bad habits and the organisations devoted to their cure: that it has no real human conflict; that the dialogue is depressingly mediocre and that Susan Hayward just revels in it. I advise him to follow the advice of one the characters in the film, and "Go out and live". He then may have some qualification for criticising the manner in which life is represented in films.

He should get his facts correct too. The man who died was not Miss Roth's husband.—F.I.

Wild Tongues

Some self-styled "Christians" are very funny to watch. The two people who answered the article enjoining Christians to "take their coats off" seemed to be embarrassed at the prospect of a state so close to their native nakedness. Their list of suggestions as to what they should be doing (if anything) has some intentional and some unintentional wit. Only ten lines separated a scorching indictment of racism in New Zealand from a supposedly humorous quotation from Russell about a "Chinaman", in the style of English which racists allege "Chinamen" use!

Ecrasez L'Infame

Low Tone

At a meeting last Wednesday, my Committee pawed the following revolution and instructed me to forward a copy of it to your publication, and to the Executive.

"That the Catholic Students' Guild, as a student body, condemns the low moral tone which is evident in Cappicade and Procession (both publicly presented to the City under the auspices of the University) and that the Executive of the Victoria University College Students' Association be asked to give serious consideration to the problem of improving the said low-moral tone."—Peter V. O'Brien. Hon. Secretary. V.U.C. Catholic Students Guild.

All Roads . . .

I suggest Mr. Neazor let well alone; or he may find a strong objection entered against the claim implicit in the name "Catholic Students Guild." Canterbury College has no "C S.G." I contents itself with a "Newman Society".—P.A. Stuart.

Short Circuited?

Would you kindly inform your readers whether the article headed "Other Worlds Like Ours" on p.5 of vol. 20. No. 9 (27-6-57) was intended as a book review of Rendle Short's "Modem Discovery and the Bible", or an informative article?

If it was the former (and the subheading very definitely gives that impression), it is hard to imagine one less competently done. "Skylar" refers to only one small portion of a book which treats a wide variety of topics, and by his remarks shows that he has not troubled to read even the few paragraphs of his choice with any attention to what the author has to say. He then proceeds to enlarge on a recent theory which in his opinion is superior to the one mentioned by Short. Finally, after a hasty reassurance about the tentative nature of his own choice, he lapses (or progresses?) into incoherence.

If, on the other hand. "Skylar merely set out to describe Alfven's hypothesis, the general logic of his approach is better, but sub-heading, is utterly misleading, and one wonders why he should pick on Rendle Short rather than one of the astronomical experts. Short's section on astronomy (or rather, cosmogony—of, p. 29) is all borrowed from men more expert in this field than himself, as his footnotes and bibliography indicate. If "Skylar" felt himself incapable of attacking the opinion of an acknowledged astronomer, he might at least have chosen a man who was still alive to answer his criticisms.

"Skylar's" remarks give the impression that Short's arguments are supported by abstruse mathematical calculations. In fact his book quotes only a few results of other scientists' calculations, with the warning. "We quote these figures with all reserve. They depend on assumptions which may prove to be inadequate."Similar warnings about all such hypothetical argument abound in this section of "Modern Discovery and the Bible". The truth of the matter, of course, is that Professor Rendle Short was a competent scientist, and was aware of the limitations, as well as the potentialities, of science. He never expected his readers to swallow, hook, line and sinker, the theories prevalent at the time he wrote, and had he been writing today he might well have felt the need to refer to a different, more modern, set of hypotheses; and no doubt if he were to be writing fifty years from now he would be able to refer to an advance of the hypothesis of Alfven, even as potted by so dogmatic a critic as "Skylar".—Mudlar

Freudian Error?

Apologies are due for one misprint in the article "Individuals are Important". ("Salient", 27th June) The sentence "Why don't we see that the basic facts of our birth get their proper place in the curriculum?" should have read "Why don't we see that the basic facts of our faith get their proper place in the curriculum?" The mistake was probably ours.—B.D., J.H.C.