"Editorial misreporting, bias, bandwaggon tactics...... "

To be honest none of your editorials thus far have surprised me with their raving. You are well known for your misreporting, bias, and 'band-waggon' tactics. But this editorial last week. It just about outdoes all of them. As a result I feel that some reply must be made if only to show up your methods to the other students and I therefore make the following points.

Firstly Mr Steele, clearly you were not there or if you were, you are so outraged at the 7000 odd that supported the March that you are determined to give a distorted view of the nature of this March because in fact the most noise came from the 50 or so pro-abortionists. You mention you were disturbed at the March. Perhaps you were, but only because you were afraid your group would be swamped by the March.

Secondly, you clearly indicate what your opinion is and you are unable to and unwilling to accept that others may have different views to your own. Therefore you proceed to ridicule and rubbish them. This is indicative of your trashy journalism, an example being the "glazed-eye change" resulting in a suggestion of a lack of sanity. How ridiculous.

Thirdly, you are an idiot to compare this march to a Nazi rally. How can those hysterical rallies of the past be compared with the silent, yes Mr Steele the silent march that occured on Friday. Clean your ears out and act like an editor of a newspaper for once. (I admit this is a big request).

Fourthly, Mr Steele, how can you be so sarcastic. Just because your small organisation, and I emphasise small, cannot afford newspaper advertisement like that of the pro-life ad, why get so up tight? The ad wouldn't bring so many people out by itself.

Fifthly Mr Steele, how can a person such as yourself be against the killing of Vietnamese children, and yet support abortion? The two points are incompatible with each other. Be consistent will you?

Sixthly, it is your opinion that abortion is a progressive step forward. Have you bothered to consult any students on campus?

So much for your article then. I hope that your efforts next year, if you are still the Editor, will be directed at writing something worth reading not only from a literary point of view but also from the point of view of value for the fees we pay to support the paper and your pocket.

A Wierzbicki