Got Spine?

[xoder]

This open letter (its at the bottom of the page) to GDT is what we like to call "passive aggressive." One does not generally have to send open letters to a publication that is different than the first publication. (By the way, the letter is referencing the drinking game from V.25, iss. 4, "Root Beer".)

You send open letters for publications to publish because the individual or organization you are sending the letter to has no responsibility or reputation for displaying complaints against them in a public forum. GDT prints each and every letter we receive, without editing for length, grammar, punctuation, spelling or content, which is more than I can say for Reporter. Don't get me wrong, Reporter has it's place and function, but "give to Caesar what is Caesar's," [Mark 12:17] where Caesar is GDT.

Pardon the rant, but when I read that in class this morning, I almost shouted, "You spineless prick!" at the letter. Which would have been bad.

And I find myself wondering about the quality of the writer's grammar and spelling. Could he withstand our standards? And it also explains the letter we got this week. How strange, its almost as though he knew that such a letter was being written to Reporter. ::turns off the conspiracy theorist::

I have signed up to live in my apartment over this summer. Next, I will register for classes for Summer and Fall. And I must get super cracking to get a co-op for this upcoming Winter (lets see if I can be ridiculously over-prepared for the résumé thing.

And LaTeX is awesome!

PETER

Comments

[alexatrit.livejournal.com]

I bit my tongue during today's review. It's good publicity for GDT due to the circulation and if anyone were to read both issues this week, they'd see a better formulated opinion on the matter.

A subtext in GDT next week should read "apparently the GDT website was hacked last week, redirecting letters to the Reporter mailbox."

And that the GDT letter called the Reporter-letter-author an "[in]sane adult."

Hehe.

[rmeinhart.livejournal.com]

that letter was also sent to GDT's email; apparently, it didnt go through the box, but when reporter received it, the first email on the very long list of recipients was, indeed, GDT. Other recipients included other local publications, radio stations, and several national ones.

reporter prints the letters to the editor that we recieve in time to print, as long as they arent from fabricated names (to our knowledge). People have written open letters to members of the administration, RIT departments, and etc, airing their concerns about the community and etc., and we publish them. there seemed no reason for reporter to not publish such a letter, airing a concern about GDT, simply because some of reporter's staff used to work there. the email was constructive and concerned, not blasphemous or libelous- it wasnt a published by reporter for any sort of personal or competitive reasons. surely you'll be the first to admit that GDT has published much worse about reporter and not always in a constructive way.

i do hope that your posting of this was in curiousity, however, you could have just as simply asked me, rather than posting a passive-agressive comment on the subject.

Re:

[xoder.livejournal.com]

The post was largely out of curiosity. I think phair isn't behaving nicely, I haven't gotten gdt-list email in awhile (and I did send something out to it, too). I should talk to Dan or someone.

Knowing that GDT was in the To: list makes me feel better about the letter.

Oh, and anyways, "There's no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary" -- Brendan Behan (Irish author d. 1964)

So yes, Curiosity did make an ass of the Peter.

::hugstoRen:: Nice to be hearing from you again!

P