While I applaud the efforts of both sides involved in this debate to come to some sort of conclusion, I am somewhat worried by the complete lack of formatting and numerous spelling errors evident in this mailing.

Double-handedly?  Sited?  Unworking?

With eleven editors, you'd think theUndercurrent could at least get an issue out without serious grammatical errors. I think the issue before last was decent, and I enjoyed the review of birth of tragedy; however, I think theUndercurrent has gotten rather preachy. If you want to avoid becoming little more than a superficial "propaganda paper", might I suggest not including a column with every issue telling students (rather rudely I might add) exactly how to lives their respective lives?  More than that, before I take any sort of advice from Kurt on how live a politically aware life, id like to see him take a stance on . . . well, anything.

Do those thirty people include the same five actual people that made up the three dozen or so contributors to the issue before last?  Also could someone please explain to me why theUndercurrent is printing obviously copyrighted material on the front page?

It's nice to see the  SSEC's office is getting more use, though, and I would ask that the undercurrent split with  SSEC whatever rent money its getting from whomever has converted the office into a dorm room --  in fact  SSEC may have to insist on it in fairness for our generosity with our office space. After all, I remember a time not so long ago when we did a similar favor for a progressive organization in trouble, surely you haven't forgotten?



-
"Revolution in the service of poetry."

------------------------------------------------------------
the cry! arts and humanities
http://www.thecry.com