This thread is closed

Oxford Gossip...

Reply 180

Gault

Screenwipe is excellent nonetheless.

Huhne's pwning Clegg.

Reply 181

anycon

11

I hate how every feature seems to be framed in **** about the condition of being here. Because we're all at Oxford, and it just, well, it's important; it should make you fraught. How can you discuss anything interestingly if you insist on perceiving things only as they relate to your identity as an elite?

Reply 182

thomasjtl

9

2 + 2 = 5 is not the original 2+2=5.
And yes, the article was pretty ****. Made me smile a couple of times, but other than that.
Peter wrote it this time last year- seems the cherwell ummed and ahhed about it for some time. Or possibly lost it.

Reply 183

username138106

stfu, 2 + 2 = 5 is the same as 2 + 2 = 5. This is obvious, seeing as they have the same ****ing name. Will write a less angry article when the OxSxu are not involved. Cheers.

Reply 184

Gault

why would anyone bother pretending to be him?

Reply 185

Cirsium

19

Well I'm not sure... but bearing in mind how much some of us see Peter, and the fact that we all know he changed his username at the start of the year, it's a bit weird...

Reply 186

thomasjtl

9

why would anyone bother pretending to be him?

It scares me slightly that peter has a fanboy.

Reply 187

username138106

why would anyone bother pretending to be him?

Bingo. On many levels.

Reply 188

Feefifofum

16

thomasjtl

It scares me slightly that peter has a fanboy.

Have you ever seen this person? http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/member.php?u=20155

Heh.
But yeah, 2 + 2 = 5 is still Peter.

oh dear.

I presume, because Pete couldn't change his name back, he just started a new account with the old name, as it would be available again.

Reply 191

Hoofbeat

14

I'm so confused! I thought that 2 + 2 = 5 was not Peter who was originally 2+2=5 (ie. without the spaces!)

Reply 192

Gault

OxStu centrespread. What an ugly bunch of coconuts.

Reply 193

Quistis

I don't understand why three of them are smoking - surely nobody over the age of 13 thinks it makes them look cool? I also don't understand why they chose to have their picture taken in the Westgate Centre car park. A further delight is how patently obvious it is that Anna (the girl in the pink scarf; genuinely lovely and clever) and the girl to her right have been Photoshopped in - well, if they weren't, why are they the only two people with a weird white halo around their heads?

Reply 194

Gault

Quistis

I don't understand why three of them are smoking - surely nobody over the age of 13 thinks it makes them look cool? I also don't understand why they chose to have their picture taken in the Westgate Centre car park. A further delight is how patently obvious it is that Anna (the girl in the pink scarf; genuinely lovely and clever) and the girl to her right have been Photoshopped in - well, if they weren't, why are they the only two people with a weird white halo around their heads?

****, I can't check, I already binned it.

I do thank whatever paper it was last week that gave us a ****-page.

Edit: ****ing asterisks.

Reply 195

Quistis

Do you mean the Cherwell Lifestyle photoshoot? Or am I thinking of a filthier four-letter word than you? :wink:

The Cherwell photo today is smaller and crappier than OxStu's, so we're all an ugly mess of pixels, but at least we're not posers. Note how not one of us is smoking.

Reply 196

Hoofbeat

14

It really irritates me that the OxStu website is so crap and that it only lets you download the pdf if you have adobe installed on your computer. I'd like to read the pdf but I'm on a Mac and am happy with the apple preview for opening pdfs and i'm not downloading adobe for the sake of it when it's completely unnecessary. And why is it taking them so long to sort out their website? At least the Cherwell website is easily accessible and updated fairly regularly.

Reply 197

Quistis

While I'll admit there's not much difference between the papers when you look at News, OxStu's Features section really is embarrassingly bad, isn't it? What was that stupid college supplement all about yesterday?

Reply 198

Gault

Quistis

Do you mean the Cherwell Lifestyle photoshoot? Or am I thinking of a filthier four-letter word than you? :wink:

The Cherwell photo today is smaller and crappier than OxStu's, so we're all an ugly mess of pixels, but at least we're not posers. Note how not one of us is smoking.

Whichever one I had a **** over.

Yeah, Cherwell staff are much fitter. And better dressed.

Reply 199

Gault

Quistis

While I'll admit there's not much difference between the papers when you look at News, OxStu's Features section really is embarrassingly bad, isn't it? What was that stupid college supplement all about yesterday?

It was all about proving Rachel Chang is a ******.

Oxford Gossip...

Related discussions

Trending

Latest

Latest