The Student Room Logo
This thread is closed

Oxford Gossip...

Scroll to see replies

Reply 200
I can't believe ****** is censored.

Reply 201
Oh for ****'s sake.
Reply 202
I wish I could say I'd enjoyed etcetera.

What's the point in publishing 500-word snippets of creative prose? How many writers have ever made that form, if it is a form, work? It's difficult ****. And it shows.

As for the poetry -- well, I won't even bother.

Design was however excellent. Purty butterflies! Yesh.
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'm not sure that they've been photoshopped, I think it's just that they were the only two directly in front of a light. You can see a bit of it on some of the others. I thought taking it in the Westgate was a good idea, but the smoking was rather weird. The Cherwell one looked a little too light a Union photo. God knows why OxStu felt they deserved a full centre spread though.

Generally the pull outs have always been crap - the Regatta one was eight pages or something, but mostly adverts and the only interesting thing was the listing of times. I didn't really understand the College Guide thing. The article itself wasn't that bad, though it's probably done every year. The Fantasy College and picture on the back were just bizarre.
Reply 204

I love the fact they both look like cartoon villains.

but, seriously, freedom of speech, anyone? wazzap with the hoo-hah?
Yes, freedom of speech is lovely and should be there for everyone, but the Union is giving them a platform to use for their own purposes...They're even quoted (the BNP) as saying this will further their cause!

Why give them such a privileged and prestigious platform?
Reply 206
Dom, do you know Dan Rollé? I told him to look at this thread for OxStu/Cherwell banter, so now is an ideal time to talk about how questionable his sexuality is (Lecher's words, not mine).
I no longer like this Free Speech Forum. I love free speech, but I get rapidly incensed at OUSU ***** telling me what to think. I don't care even if the Brixton BNP branch do happen to make the journey to torch blacks in a wicker man, because what I've suffered is already at least eight times worse. Maybe nine.

Although, I have to admit, the funniest thing I've seen in recent times was the group flyering outside the Union on election day. "Would you like to take a flyer?", and someone takes one. Literally two seconds later, they walk into the Union, where the flyer is immediately confiscated for breaching election rules. The sheer futility of it was overaweing, and yet they never seemed to notice.
Reply 208
They're even quoted (the BNP) as saying this will further their cause!

They're free to say that too, even though it's also *******s.

I don't understand why the 'prestige' of the platform is relevant. Once you're under the august eaves of the Union chamber do you suddenly become more gullible? 'Well, if it's said here, there must be something to it.' When Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia, did it credit his Holocaust denial?

Successfully to have censored them may indeed have advanced their cause better than inviting them to speak, and having them speak -- if those did so at all. I don't know how the debate turned out, but I suspect Irving & Griffin were trounced. To suppress pernicious nonsense lends it glamour. Given a platform, inevitably it exposes itself and is exposed as the tawdry unfounded tosh it is.
Union stormed by anti-fascists. What a massive ****ing own-goal.
what was themain line of argument?
Reply 211
I'm now glad I didn't go to the protest. According the the reports on googlenews, Irving and Griffin ended up in different rooms and didn't do that well.
Reply 212
I'm now glad I didn't go to the protest. According the the reports on googlenews, Irving and Griffin ended up in different rooms and didn't do that well.

Actually in all fairness to him, Irving didnt do all that badly apart from the couple of times he went a bit demented shouting schmeerfinkel or something at the press. Evan Harris on the other was excellent, really knew his stuff and had some really good points. Definitely helped me make my mind up
Reply 213
Schmierfink {m}
dirty fellow
Reply 214
Schmierfink {m}
dirty fellow

That would be 'Schmutzfink'. 'Schmierfink' is a disparaging name for a journalist.:wink:
Reply 215
well done for knowing better than the dictionary.
Reply 216
well done for knowing better than the dictionary.

I'm a native speaker of German.:rolleyes:

What the holy ****ting ****?

"Oxford Union President exposed as 'hack'". Shocker. I had heard something about him holding a "slate party", although the person that told me this had added that two DROs, several officers and officers-elect, along with around half of the big committees went, and were seen to have a bloody good time.
Doesn't explain what "rule 33" is!
I just assumed it was the standard electoral malpractice "DON'T HACK" rule.