Comments on: New Issue of the Claremont Independent

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:33:31 +0000

“The highlights (maybe ‘highlights’ wasn’t the best word) are meant to show off some of the articles that aren’t so prominent on the CI’s website.”

Why not correct the original post to clarify this?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:33:00 +0000

“The highlights (maybe ‘highlights’ wasn’t the best word) are meant to show off some of the articles that aren’t so prominent on the CI’s website.”

Why not correct the original post to clarify this?

By: Charles Johnson

Charles Johnson — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:15:59 +0000

Maybe it’s because the Forum is supposed to be, as the person up top noted, a Forum and isn’t supposed to display the kind of bias it does.

By: Charles Johnson

Charles Johnson — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:15:00 +0000

Maybe it’s because the Forum is supposed to be, as the person up top noted, a Forum and isn’t supposed to display the kind of bias it does.

By: Josh Siegel

Josh Siegel — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:14:54 +0000

Why does everything have to become an argument or controversy? Take it easy.

Sure, The Forum could have linked to every single article in the CI as they were almost all pretty link-worthy, but instead we just linked to the entire publication and pointed out some of the less prominently displayed stories.

If you hold a different opinion about what should have or should not have been linked to, that’s fine. But there’s no reason to be malicious about it.

By: Charles Johnson

Charles Johnson — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:01:19 +0000

Could you please explain to me how those figures are inaccurate? I was told by at least one member of the budgeting committee that they were told to “disregard” the figures from Ludacris because the accounting was so messed up. Now that might be more of a problem with the Dean of Students, but we deserve a little more transparency. Is Ludacris worth half of what our graduation speaker is?

I challenge any member of ASCMC to come forward and tell us what we did wrong in our article.

By: Charles Johnson

Charles Johnson — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:01:00 +0000

I challenge any member of ASCMC to come forward and tell us what we did wrong in our article.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:59:02 +0000

How about some of the articles that actually broke news?

1. the Questbridge cancellation piece.
2. the ROTC piece on how Oxtoby still won’t change policy

Instead the Forum decides to link up only to the safe topics. I thought this thing was supposed to be a, well, a Forum. Guess not.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:59:00 +0000

How about some of the articles that actually broke news?

1. the Questbridge cancellation piece.
2. the ROTC piece on how Oxtoby still won’t change policy

Instead the Forum decides to link up only to the safe topics. I thought this thing was supposed to be a, well, a Forum. Guess not.

By: "ASCMC Member"

"ASCMC Member" — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:54:22 +0000

If your sources were really ASCMC board members, they gave you false information and inaccurate figures, maybe because they know you would only aim to cast ASCMC in a negative light regardless of the facts. However, I doubt they actually were ASCMC members, or members who knew enough to be considered a source, or they wouldn’t have requested to be anonymous.

You should be thankful the Forum linked to the Claremont Independent and I do not know why you are complaining about a gesture of goodwill like this. You are just prone to anger and hate.