Here's a wild and crazy thought: why don't you genuinely give a shit,
instead of putting on appearances? There were complaints about
inappropriate material in a progsoc publication. They have been
laughed off. "Just replace it with references to gays!" A clue
is beginning to dawn, but the day is still dark.
Guess what? Progsoc just joined the long, time-honoured tradition
of imbecilic UTS student editors who abused their position to push
their own bizarre agendas. (When progsoc started, these people
were universal objects of derision; but that was a long time ago.)
In this case, someone thought it was necessary to include sexual content
in a computing services publication, presumably as a desperate attempt to
fob off insecurities about their lack of worldliness. We're not just
computer geeks, see, we know about the wider world of girls and boys
and bodily fluids, and we really want to tell you!
If gay activism makes you uncomfortable, how can you dismiss this
student's compaint? Amazingly, not everyone enjoys being objectified,
either by some queer activist "writer" wannabe, or by some computer
nerd "writer" wannabe.
When I asked about the status of TFM, it was obvious that basic
questions such as "What are we trying to do", "How are we going
to do it", and "Who is our audience" had not even been asked.
Rather, priorities appear to have been, "How can we best
impress our friends?" and "Can this push my CV further away
from the world of computing?"
Even Hefner's address is wrong. Are you trying to show that you
are the least Internet-savvy kids on the block?
I dislike flaming; it's an expression of disgust which I would
rather not feel. So next time, how about getting back to
basics and doing it properly?
-- I.S.