P.S. Surprise me and avoid making a "Clever" reply at the end of this.

(This isn't going to be clever and I'm not Simon Wilson, merely a humble typesetter - you know, ordinary droll workie, but the letter to which you refer, and which is reprinted above is quite clearly a mimeographed form letter addressed to "Dear Sir/Madam, not dear Editor or dear Sir. In fact there's nothing to indicate it is a letter to the editor at all. But I suspect that Simon is going to be clever anyway typstr.)

(Okay Al, don't wet your pants.

(see, I told you he'd be clever....)

The letter from the Dunedin sexuality group appears below. As it arrived before we had started publication for the year and bore no marks to suggest it was intended as a letter to the editor, it never occured to me that I should publish the thing. I merely thought, if you can see past the plotting to believe this, that the group was being nice enough to keep me informed.

The letter makes many claims, some spurious, some downright bullshit. I was responsible for laying out the Sexuality booklet. Some photos, not the bulk by any means, were replaced by graphics. A member of the group gave me verbal permission to do this. Whether the graphics are in poor taste is a matter of opinion. I don't think they are, nor in my experience does anyone else except members of the group. Certainly Vic students have raised no objection.

I might add that in selecting the graphics I took a lead from the personal statements themselves. How "moderately serious", for example, is the claim "Masturbation is... the easiest way of coming to grips with yourself "? You know, the group's aim of being "sensitive and mature" sounds remarkably like headmaster talk to me.

The letter goes on to claim that some parts of the text have been altered or omitted. Apart from the Abortion section (which we were asked to change if the law was altered, which it was) and the contact lists at the back which we updated also on request), no other copy has been touched.

The cover was scrapped because a] it was badly done with wobbly, sloping letraset and b] it was the wrong shape. Our replacement was taken from within the booklet itself so we wouldn't move too far away from the group's intentions.

To the best of my knowledge NZUSA has not published a disclaimer because, I would guess, the situation does not warrant one.

Now to your letter. Al. You charge Salient of absconding on its traditional role of muckraking, and have taken it on for yourself. All I can say is that considering the booklet has gone down well with students on all the campuses (Otago included, I hear) and with the people who have a professional involvement in the field, it might become you to take another look at your own reasons to for taking the stand you have.

Sure it's fashionable to attack NZUSA, and in some cases there is very good reason for doing so, but your contribution only helps obscure the real issues at stake. Otago president Andrew Guest claimed at the recent NZUSA SGM that whatever the rights and wrongs of affairs like the Sexuality booklet controversy, they still managed to split the association.

I suggest to you that "Aunti Lisa" and the other officers are not always primarily responsible for that split. But let's not get too heavy over the whole thing. After the Dunedin letter you will find a sample of the Victoria reaction to the booklet.—ed.)