Ex Canterbury Presidents IVP aspirant chides Editor

I was glad to see you were interested in my candidacy for International Vice-President of NZUSA. even if your report was not particularly competent or even scrupulous. Why else devote 60% of your article on the National Executive to the subject? And coverage on Page 2 — quite an honour!

It is a pity that such an important election should be so badly mis-reported. I hope that most of Salient's material is of belter quality. You prefered to ignore most of what I said, concentrating on a few oversimplifications and misunderstandings that occurred during the question period: even these you did not report accurately. For example: — I did not say that NZUSA was 'fucked' or that I wanted to 'destroy it from within'. I do not believe that NZUSA is totally corrupt, or I would not consider standing for election. You know very well that I favour reforming NZUSA rather than destroyin it (eg., by having campuses leave it). And I have too much respect for the formidable political skills of Lisa Sacksen, David Cuthbert et. al. to believe I would be 'a cat among the pigeons' !

— I did not state that I might 'act against NZUSA policy' if it was against my personal beliefs. You must be aware that I said I could not, in conscience, action policy promoting the destruction of Israel. This was merely expressed in "fair" warning' to anyone who did not already know my position on the questions of Israel and Zionism. Ross White of Otago correctly pointed out that NZUSA at present has no anti-Israel policy, that the Middle East is not a priority area for NZUSA and that I should resign rather than campaign against any such policy (if agreed upon at August Council) I thought this was understood by everyone, but I seem to have been mistaken.

There were some other errors in your report, which I will list at the end of this letter. More important for the moment are your errors of omission. You know quite well why I stood for IVP yet you did not mention this to Victoria students — I wonder why?

I campaigned against the pervading Maoist ideology in the National office of NZUSA, the predominance of this ideology in NZUSA can hardly be denied. I said that the officers' political slant did affect their work, particularly in International Affairs, and this was accepted by some on the National Executive. I said the officers which accepted Maoist theories represented only a small section of student opinion because the major political division at University, as in NZ overall, is between left and for left) and that I. as a liberal could be a better 'representative' of students in this sense. Can you deny this?

I spoke in favour of each campus autonomy, for while it is desirable for all campuses to act together it is not reasonable (or practical) to expect an Executive to carry out an NZUSA policy which it opposes! Why should not strong disagreements among, students be reflected in the public stands, of their Students Associations?

I spoke against a tendency to use personality attacks and smear tactics in campus argument — particularly on international questions. (After your article. I now have a personal interest in pressing this point of view!). Strange you did not mention this.

Stranger still that you did not mention the tasks of the IVP for the rest of 1977. viz helping the fight against cutbacks in overseas student numbers, working against colonialism In the South Pacific and helping the anti-apartheid movement on campuses. Bruce Gulley, of Auckland, whom you criticised, was the only one of the Presidents to ask me about these subjects. Didn't they rate a mention from you? They are what the job is about, after all. Perhaps you intended to report the election on a personality basis rather than facing the issues......?

It is true that some Presidents, including Ross White, thought I viewed NZUSA in iconoclastic terms; that I'd come along to do Quixotic battle with a nest of raving Maoists. I manitain that I have fewer illusions about NZUSA than some of them: 'remember that Canterbury supported the present officers of NZUSA in last year's elections while Otago abstained, so I have good reason to know how easily student leaders can give a job to someone who wants it and has ability, even if the person is not suitable for political reasons. We all make mistakes; what is important is to recognise them, learn from them and help prevent their repetition. That was one of my reasons for standing for IVP.

Gusts of dissent have been felt before in the National Executive and will be again. So they should be. Let us hope they are better reported next time in 'Salient'.

Catholic Atrocities

A lot of New Zealanders would agree with C.R. Malon's criticism of the Roman Church (Salient July 4) but because of a catholic prescence in the news media many people are unaware of just how hypocritical the Catholic Church is regarding abortion, although they might suspect something of the sort because it is unusual when an organisation with a long history of violence claims to be concerned about protecting human life.

Nearly everyone knows that during WW2 the German fascists gave racial minorities a hard time, but the Catholics have been successful in hushing up the similar activities of their Church in Croatia during 1941-44 which were directed against [unclear: religion] minorities. When Yugoslavia was invaded the German government allowed Ante Pavelich who was the head of a catholic paramilitary organisation to establish an independent state provided it declared war on the Allies.

In May 1941 Pavelich and a delegation went to Rome and were received and blessed by the Pope. "L'Osservatore Romano" explained this wasn't a breach of Papal "neutrality" because they had not been received as heads of the Croatian government but as "catholic individuals" ! The policy of the Croatian government was stated publicly by Dr Mile Budak, the Minister of Public Education and Creeds, in Gospic on 22 July 1941. He said "We shall kill one part of the Serbs, we shall transport another, and the rest of them will be forced to embrace the Roman Catholic religion". This policy was carried out with the full participation of the clergy including the head of the catholic hierarchy in Croatia, Archbishop Stepinac, and resulted in approximate 940,000 deaths. A list of the catholic priests who acted as executioners can be found on page 176 of "The Martyrdom of the Serbs" which was prepared by the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese (for the USA and Canada). (Palandech's Press, Chicago, 1943). The hierarchial organisation of the Catholic Church meant that Stepinac wouldn't have encouraged the murder of non-catholics without the approval of his superiors in Rome who were informed of what was happening.

When Croatia was liberated Pavelich escaped and spent some time hiding in the Vatican itself but Stepinac was brought to trial and given sixteen years forced labour. In 1953 the Pope promoted him to Cardinal for his 'great services' to the Church.

So when the catholic clergy tell us they oppose abortion because it involves killing human [unclear: llie] we should be sceptical at the very least.

An Open Letter to the President

This is an open letter to Lindy Cassidy, President of our Student association. I challenge Lindy to reveal the true facts on each of the rumours listed below that have been circulating for several months now.

Lindy, don't just say these figures are incorrect — give us the correct ones if they are wrong at all.

It's our fees that finance the recently purchased Victoria Book Centre and pay for the associations activities. Just like any union members, we are entitled to know what all employees of the association are paid.

I challenge you to reveal the top hourly rate paid and name the individuals pocketing them. I challenge you to reveal all 'directorship fees on the books together with commissions and expenses paid out by both the association and the Book Centre for this year.

Did the association recently write off a large loan (about $2,000) that had been given to a certain student. Also provide us with a list of all students who owe the association money.

Don't tell us you are too busy to look up the figures. We do pay you $60 a week to look after all students interests, not just your friends. Students demand a reply.

Lets hear your side of the story!

The President replies

The Association did not recently write off a large loan to a student. To protect its members interests the Association has very strict terms for each loan, and never writes off a loan if it is humanly possible to recover the debt. We have never lent more than $500 to any one student.

All loans made by this Association are in strict confidence, thus I cannot reveal the names of such persons.

I hope this is a satisfactory reply to your questions. If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me or raise these questions at SRC.

A Nasty Review of the Reviewer

Leaving outside the matter of elementary grammar I was particularly struck by the outrageous misuse, (common though it may be among feminist circles), of the word 'chauvinist'. This word, according to definition, is 'a person who sticks up for their own sex' [and hence female chauvinist, make chauvinist et cetera, ad nauseum]. I would suggest that in any future reviews that Mizz Jean Betts check up on any obscure long words she may have a desire to incorporate into the text so as to keep the appearance of her ignorance to a minimum.

Dirty Tricks and Smears.

Singaporean and Malaysian Governments are experts in using the tactic of capping "people who disagree with government policy" as red or communists. Now here in Wellington, we find the same thing.

Students (especially the first year students who are more Ignorant and unaware of ths situation here) are told to 'away from the Commies, the lefts etc'. Some OCF-ers and some in MSA are smearing MSSA as a leftist organisation, and some as communists. Four of my first year mates have all been told the same story.

It is time that these dirty tricks were exposed and students told the true story. Come on mates! Don't be led to join the MSA or OCF by merely listening to those smearings. Find out the truth.

I would like to clear up few points that brought out by 'some ones' in a recent issue of Salient. Before I proceed, let me say that "these 'some ones' have been hit at the right place", for only then they would get mad and dash about using four letter words and shouting at the air. They cannot distinguish MSA and MSSA. Let's have a look at the brief history on the two organisations.

MSA has been a strong student body in Wellington. It's functions mainly centred on [unclear: dancin] parties, trips, annual sport tournament and of course the Merdeka Ball. She is used to be called 'Social Club'. During the last three years when the student movement was at it's peak, MSA was all the time behind the scene. Many expected that as a student body like MSA whould lead the student movement. Instead whe was addressed as 'licking the use of the government' during the meetings. I think most students quite aware of this.

In the past, MSSA had leas financial members than MSA, not many activities were organised. Even then, 'some ones' wanted to nip her in the bud. These people turn out to be MSA executive members. They have tried every means to dissolve MSSA, but they failed each time. Until the beginning of this year, some concerned students came out and reorganised it. The 1977 MSSA is quite different from the past, she has organised a tot of activities that concerned the [unclear: welfare] of the students. Even the people like Alex Chen is also aware of this.

I have been to some of the functions organised by MSSA. Don't tell me that MSSA rely on VUWSA or NZUSA lust because a few kiwis appear in the functions or their names are mentioned in the newsletters. According to this logic, you can say that MSSA also rely on MSA since I found that the MSA Secretary appears quite often in MSSA functions or MSA also rely on VUWSA of NZUSA since their names axe mentioned in the Suara Siswa too. Obviously, it is the same old dirty tactic used by these few irresponsible people like Alex Chen to disrupt the unity of the students. It is not surprising that the smearing campaign against MSSA is carried out by these few irresponsible people. The awakening and the growth of the Malaysian students bodies has become an irresistible trend, whether you like it or not. That can be proved by just looking at the Malaysian Students' bodies in other countries.

I wish to comment on a few points which were raised by Alex Chen in a recent issue of Salient.

His letter gives me an impression that he lacks a clear insight and understanding of the real situation before forming his own value judgement. Throughout the letter, be had been passing sweeping statements without further convincing the readers with concrete evidence.

Alex Chen talked about the 'WMSSA.S attack on WMSA : to me, it is merely an irresponsible generisation for he failed to provide me with proof or evidence. I doubt many of our fellow students will agree with his generalisations. In doing so, he makes us highly suspicious of his intention in writing the letter.

In the first issue of WMSSA'S newsletter, the Committee has stated that they are looking forward for co-operation with all overseas student bodies. Also in the second issue of Suara Siswa, the WMSA Committee has also wished to co-operate between the two associations (WMSSA and WMSA) in matters of common interest. Beside one incident when WMSA passed a circular in defending it's involvement in the ISC and making critical comment on WMSSA. There is no way to find concrete evidence to say that the two organisations are in great conflict. May I suggest Alex Chen starts communicating with the above two organisations before making any value Judgement.

It is encouraging to see that both WMSSA and WMSA are working together for the cut-back campaign We are all looking forward to such co-operation. Not forgetting OCF. It is time for you to come out of your world and put your belief into practice in bringing more love and peace to our fellow students and people both here and abroad. I presume combined effort between the various students organisations and our fellow students will make the task ahead much more easier.

As for WMSSA, my comment is the same as what the Ex-OCF member has said. It has emerged to play a significant role in our community. The new WMSSA is Just a beginning. It takes time and our own involvement before we can really get to know it and criticise its worthiness in our community Alex Chen seems to lack far-sightedness in fudging the achievement of WMSSA to date. Good efforts which had been put in ISC cutback issue. Get—together etc. are facts that he can't deny.

I had attended some of the WMSSA'a functions and found them to be very pleasing and encouraging Perhaps organising and publicity are two minor areas of weakness. It may be due to lack of experience which I think can be bettered through constant review. The turn-out for the functions are quite good, still it reflects to some extent that WMSSA is welcomed by our student community here. However, many of us are still not aware of what is going on. Lack of publicity is not the main reason. It is mainly due to our lack of concern and response to things that are happening around us. We should all make an attempt to break away from our apathetic attitude and try to make an attempt to explore new things which concerns us.

Deeds and actions speak louder than words. Alex Chen, be more realistic. Do make an effort to find out things for yourself and prove it with your personal belief.

Regarding the problems — welfare problems, What role does the OCF in Wellington play in this field?

Up to the present, OCF bad declared a neutral stand on the 45% Malaysian Students cutback. By keeping a neutral stand in another word is to tell the members and overseas students that she does not support the issue. Using the term 'neutral stand' is trying to fool the overseas students, especially its members.

As an organisation, OCF has not stopped [unclear: should] of not supporting the 45% Malaysian Student [unclear: cu] Recently she has stepped up her active [unclear: opposition] by discrediting the welfare work of MSSA, classifying it as political.

Intentionally OCF has tried to suppress the questioning of her members by solely encouraging them to study the Bible and not to care a damn — about everyday happenings.

Yet OCF has always declared herself to be working for the Welfare of Overseas Students. May I question why OCF can't support the 45% Malaysian Students cutback?

May I add another message to her faithful members — about the role of Christianity — especially regarding the chance of your future brothers and sisters who will be deprived of the chance to come here. Come on. It is time you question your leadership on this stand of the 45% Malaysian Students cutback.

More on Abortion

I was interested to note the '[unclear: Abortion] letters of the July 4 Issue of "Salient" (the one with the ridiculous back-page advertisement), and intrigued by the contents of said letters. Musing over the cynical attitude of the respective authors towards logic and objectivity, I began to re-read the arguments of the correspondence in an attempt to grasp the "basic issues" contended. One writer began refuting biological fact by citing a poet — and not a good one at that (though that, of course, is a matter of taste isn't it?). What next? Quotations of Timothy Leary?!

After challenging biological science by a poet's learned words, the argument 'progressed' to pose the rhetorical question; is it not better to save two lives by destroying one? To parallel, something like killing-off Jews to preserve Aryan purity and Teutonic heritage? I suppose such a proposition is acceptable, depending on how chic to liberalism one is.

Later, doubt manifested itself in the form of; the foetus "has only the most narrow clinical definition of life". Really? How many times must the scientific fact that once the nuclei of the mammaliam sperm and ovum are united another 'thing' has commenced biological life. I use the term 'thing' for those sceptics who prefer to label the foetus a 'thing' — even though it is, as one writer put it; "a multicellulan (complex organism, with the [unclear: capacity] to reason". Fact.

Still — when it comes to genetics and biological proof, fact is insubstantial compared to personal doubts backed by poetic license, right?

But of course economies are the ultimate deciding factor when it comes to the question of life's continuance, are they not? So what happens to society's other non-productive entities? It seems to me that depending on what [unclear: cio-economic]/productive level one occupies. One's right to life is relatively scaled.

Further on, the issue of Catholicism was raised. Of the June 5 'Abortion letters', not once could I [unclear: notice] the word 'Catholic' mentioned or any [unclear: motations] thereof. One letter was extremist, one was objective and the third was emotional — yet where does Catholicism enter the argument in respect to these particular corresponedences?

Granted, the majority of Catholics are concerned with the issue of abortion — but give me one logical reason why they shouldn't be concerned?! After all, who was it that said: "thou shalt not kill" — certainly not a dis illusioned neurotic poet. When it comes to birth control, it would be best if detractors of the pro-life lobby refrained from arguing its merits by following it on from the abortion argument, as confusions arise.

Abortion (as has been previously and on numerous occasions stated) illogical from a objective viewpoint, and immoral from a subjective perspective, as it is the process of killing another human being in a premeditative manner — even though that human being may be economically non-productive. As such it is a violation of the accepted attitudes towards life, not to mention a divine commandment.

Birth control on the other hand is not so 'wrong' as the two factors of life are not united, hence no life exists.

That is not to say that it is desirable that contraceptives should be freely available to teeny-bopper coquettes.

If I may be granted leave for a few lines to expurgate my personal opinions — contraceptives freely available to pre-sixteen year old girls would certainly not decrease the number of pauchy sluts roaming the streets outside (inside?) school hours. Contraceptives are not going to be effective when the user has no responsible attitude towards morality (i.e. Coquette plus contraceptives does not equal Restraint or Responsibility).

It must finally be reiterated, though, that the majority of women who would benefit from readily available abortion would be those, obviously, not wishing to have the burden of children bestowed upon them — i.e. career women. And where does one find (would—be) career women? Need it be stated — tertiray educational institutions. So who is selfish.

To conclude, I'd like to paraphrase a saying that I heard once concerning women, contraception and children: They like to make it but they don't want it (the result). As these women have just graduated and don't want 'accidental' children to ruin their prospective careers, its quite understandable, isn't it?

Oh.. but they're so busy being 'active' at Varsity that thye most likely won't graduate in any case —

Will the Real Pete Stand Up Please

Regarding the letter protesting about forged letters, headed "This letter could be a Forgery' allegedly written by one Mr Peter Callinicos claiming to be President of that fine estsblishment, Victoria House. Well, you were indeed correct David, it was a forgery and although I agree fully with sentiments laid down by myself the spelling of the surname was grossly incorrect. My surname is spelt C-A-L-L-I-N-I-C-O-S.

As I am an honest and conscientious member of this tightly knit community I believe it is my duty to expose the offender. The forgery was written by one of the Law Faculty's most feared up and coming (all over the place) Law students. Richard (Big Dick) Hellyer. Don't get me wrong, he's not feared for any brilliance at Law but for his moat unfortunate case of BO. (Yes that's right, Body Odour), brought on most probably by Prof. Geoff Palmer's socratic method lectures. Anyone in Constitutional Lectures who dares to sit within thirty feet of him is rapidly overcome by the reek that he exudes, a more painless and rapid way to pass away (Euphemistic term), than the slow excrutiating tortures practised by Prof. Palmer on a good day.

Yet Another Family Name Disgraced

My name is Thorndon, Cyril John Quenton Thorndon for short. I should like it known publicly to my fellow students that I am in no way what-so-ever connected with the infamous Apathy League, so will people please stop being nasty to me.

I find it most distasteful that the family name be in any way associated with something as undesirable as a League for apathetic individuals, the very thought of it turns me all a quiver and sends ray soul craving for a bit of bone crunching.

I am in no way apathetic — If I saw a little old lady being beaten to death or my sister being raped. I'd be In there with the best of them putting the boot in. There's nothing I like better than a bit of good clean wholesome rape, violence, animal fondling, and poof bashing, with all the accompanying blood, gore, guts and disembowelled bodies. Personally I find the thought of fists covered in oozing, red, corpuscular fluid inspires me to be far from apathetic.

So stop maligning the name of Thorndon or I'll come and fondle your body till your arms and legs fall off!

Young Socialist Denies Being Out of his Depth on Fishing

In reply to some of the criticisms made of my article on the 200-mile fishing limit (Salient May 23):

First, the argument that by opposing the 200mile limit I have 'lined right up with a big power against a small country' (better by Tevita Tuakalau. June 5). This is a misunderstanding, if the writer thinks that I would like to see any country come and overfish the resources around New Zealand. I said in the article that "No one has any right to overexploit fishing resources — neither foreign nor local fields". I argue that the 200-mile limit is an adequate measure as far as conservation is concerned (because overexploitation is inevitable while the industry is governed by a capitalist market system, and this is true for NZ capitalism as well as foreign capitalism) and that any campaign in support of one captialism against another is a diversion form the course which will make conservation possible - socialist planning, of the industry.

Captain Ahab (letter, May 30) says that we should "put the blame for overexploitation where it be lings" (ie. on the foreign fleets). No one would deny that the foreign fleets are capable of worse overexploitation than the NZ fleets at present — for the reasons Ahab gives: that the foreign industries are more highly developed, have more sophisticated equipment etc. But is the NZ industry good from a conservation point of view simply because it is undeveloped and inefficient? What happens when, With the Assistance of this Campaign, the local industry becomes as highly developed as the foreign ones and carries out the same overexploitation — do you go on supporting it? No — the examples I gave of overfishing by the NZ industry showed that the capitalist nature if the industry makes overfishing inevitable, even when that industry is relatively backward.

Socialist planning of the industry is what is required, not underdeveloped unplanned capitalist control.

The question of the Soviet Union — how a country with a post-capitalist economy can be responsible for overfishing — was touched on in the article, but deserves further clarification. The reason, is that although getting rid of capitalist control of the industry is the necessary prerequisite for conservationist industry, it does not follow that conservation automatically 'happens' with the overthrow of capitalism. It is still necessary to plan the industry in a way that will ensure conservation — something that the Soviet bureaucracy obviously does not do. The bureaucracy is clearly not acting in the interests of the Russian workers, is ignoring fish conservation? But the remedy for this bad planning is not to support unplanned capitalist exploitation of the resources as an alternative!

None of the letters challenged my basic assertions: that overexploitation is a necessary and [unclear: ategral] part of a capitalist fishing industry, and that therefore supporting New Zealand capitalism against foreign capitalism is not the answer to the problems.

James Robb.

Labour MP Demands Apology

As a former Editor of a student newspaper, Craccum. I naturally take a great interest in current standards of student journalism. It was, therefore, with great concern that I read your brief paragraph stating that I "managed to avoid promising anything on behalf of (my) Party". (Issue of 4.7.77)

Other areas were also included, but it would be unrealistic for Labour to make promises about situations which would require further investigation, especially in view of what could be the economic situation in November 1978.

I take strong exception to being quoted in the way you have done. It is quite dear that no real effort was make to find out what I said, and that the paragraph was based on some verbal report.

I will expect to see an apology in the next issue of your publication.

The Chosen One

So, the question of Zionism has arose at last! It is quite obvious to me the "Anti-Zionist". (letter [unclear: Jule] 11) is another example of the subversive communist infiltrators who are attempting to put decent god-fearing people off all that which is true and good.

The people of Israel are (next to the true blue American people) a classic example of the solidarity of ideals that this world need. Israel is a state that stands as one people. It is the individuals own desire and right to be a Jew and to form his own nation that gives to Israel the glory and freedom that it so deserves. Persecution of these divinely chosen people can be blamed on envy and jealousy of a people whose initiative, sense of pride, and nationhood has made them the most invincible and permanent democracy on earth.

Visions

The Ministry of Propaganda under Hitler was quoted as saving something like this once.

"If you speak a lie long enough and hard enough, people will believe what you have said".

Well, Observer in Salient June 5 is just doing that same old trick again with his mixed-up gangs of Stalinists and Trotskyites.

Bullshit No 1.

Observer mentions that WMSSA is doing most of the organising in the International Student Congress.

Vision No 1

I wonder whether the Real organiser is the Singaporean Government and his agents in NZ. Well, I figure that all progressive students will attend the ISC, thus giving the government agents a perfect chance to spy on them. I may be wrong it could he [unclear: NZUSA.]

Bullshit No 2.

[unclear: Obser er] wrote that in a Recent Newsletter circulated to us, WMSA claimed that they were in the planning committee.

Vision No 2.

I have read the newsletter again and from what I understood, they did not anywhere mention that they were in the Planning Committee. MSA just [unclear: mentioned] that "it has been attending the meetings and is still attending the meetings". I personally cannot understand why MSA is not in the Planning Committee or should they? with MSSA already in? Maybe MSA has not been invited officially to join the Planning Committee or maybe they have. I do not know. But why only Auckland MSSA was at the ISC and not Auckland MSA?

Bullshit No 3.

Observer mentions University life is one where you can learn a lot of new things.

Vision No 3.

An unforgivable lie.

United we stand

Divided we fall.

It's good to see some union solidarity shown viz. students' union and Salient having a go at the Auckland Law student Harder, who tried to assert individual rights in the face of the mob. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, and when will Tom Skinner stick up for a living Bursary for students? Tom Skinner wouldn't bend over to pick up $13.00 and if anybody suspended so much as a booze delivery service to Tom Skinner on Sundays, they wouldn't be able to shrug off his retaliation, legal or otherwise.

Talking of Law students. I know Law graduates who would jump at a chance to practice Law, no matter what their initial motivation. People studying it for interests sake soon find their interest is maintained by stories of sucessful lawyers they know. If we have unrestricted entry and pass those who know their stuff the end result will be that the Law firms will be able to select from a wide range, and that's where the danger of selection according to social status, schools attended, and influential parentage becomes real. I'd rather have selection by academics now than selection by the profession in five years time.

And as for the Hunter Building, the only reason it is so important is that no other building at Vic. looks in the least like a University, instead of wasting energy preserving a death-trap we should ab agitating to get a decent architect to design something of comparable architectural value. There are times when bombing Rankine Brown seems a good idea — could we add Easter-field. Kirk and Cotton while we're about it?

Gym Hire Stuffed

I hope you don't mind me addressing you on a first name basis, I'm Frank. I would like to stress my strongest (and the odour is strong) disapproval at the Gym hire system. To hire any gears' you have to be able to produce (not forged) a drivers license or International Student Identity Card (ID). What happens if you don't have a car licence (or have lost it due to your careless driving even though it wasn't your fault as you were unable to walk the straight line), or due to having to pay the heavy fines, you can't afford to pay $2 for an ID card (which is a waste of time as anyone on a Bursary can't afford to travel home anyway). What is a library card for? "For use in the library" you might say. Well— good answer, but isn't it available as ID for Bursary Payments. Surely if it's good enough to collect $104 it must be good enough to borrow a 20c ping pong bat. The excuse given to me by the friendly? lady? (lake it how you like), behind the bulletproof glass (put there for protection from would be customers,) was that it was more likely that a library card would be left behind than a driver's licence if the so-called energetic patron decided to keep the ping U pong bats. A flimsy excuse!!!

I know that the chances of a lost library card being found and used by some shady character, are no greater than a drivers licence being used in the same manner. (I know my probabilities as I took Econ. 112). So lets hear some belter reasons for the Gym (Jim) hire system.

Frank N. Stein (Mk III).

Look but don't Touch

Just a small note to you dear honourable sir, from one of the many humble and unillustrious dills refered to as first year Science students. Having been at this place for some time now ! finally discovered or heard rumours that these exists or more correctly existed one Biology Library on the 4 th floor of Kirk. This was only brought to my notice after Prof. Wells announced at his last lecture that after a considerable fight with some authority whose name eludes me, we humble cretins were allowed to use the room for study and reading.

After going to that same said room, one found many rows of shelved books with a notice saying "Students No Access". However we are apparently allowed to sit down and study despite the fact that we have no resources to study.

The point which has annoyed me somewhat since seeing that stock of books just sitting there is the fact that they haven't been shifted to the Main Library and don't look as though they will be in the near future. No wonder I couldn't find any bloody books for a Botany 101 essar in the first term. And no wonder I couldn't find a book recommended to me by a Zoology Lab. demonstrator because some Main Library nurk told me [unclear: that] it must still be in the Biology Library.

Although it doesn't sound like it, I am not overly fond of gripers or griping myself but somehow this one seems like one too many for Mr Tolerateeverything Gundfartin Arseholes to tolerate. Please what can be done?