|
Letters to the Editor
Response to Wilcox
I would like respond point by point to Wilcox’s letter (“A debug,” Thursday, Oct. 17) about the problems with the on-campus and off-campus systems, point by point, drawing off my five years of lab consulting experience.
1. Online storage is not a waste of time and money. First, the network is reliable on and off campus. Second, it is incredibly convenient to access files from home or from any computer on campus. I do agree that for any file larger than 500kb, a dial up connection is too slow, rendering the file space hard to access.
2. A: drives are definitely not as reliable as Zip drives, or file space. However, even though some of the drives are not 100 percent reliable, most work well. The statement about the A: drive was a statement to help sway people to use the file space.
3. Incompatibility. This is false. All office programs–Word, Excel, and Power Point–are compatible. The only problem is that PCs do not readily read Mac-formatted disks.
4. Computer logins. Our computers log in automatically. If you do get a login problem there are deeper issues with the computer that need to be resolved–a consultant will write a ticket to get the problem fixed.
5. Unauthorized users. Some of the computers in the library are for public use and one must swipe there student ID to get into the 24 hour lab.
Your solution for using USB flash memory is a great idea for individual users at $30 for 16 MB. However, for more than 10,000 students, considering how many lost and damaged disks we see each week, (it’s) a little impractical.
My advice, use the file space instead of a floppy disk, or use both for added reassurance. And ask a friendly lab consultant for help with any problems you may have.
Kevin Mies
Senior, Speech Communication
Justified hate
Your readers seem to be severely offended these days by the word “hate.” The letters to the editor caught my eye when I happened upon the responses to Justim Byma's original column, “Hypocracy 101,” (Monday, Oct. 7) with the typical comments on the mild mannered Rush Limbaugh and the classic ooooooooooo, he's a right winger. No one disputed what Byma said, of course, they just whined about him saying it.
I wish to let you and your readers know that there are those, like me, who truly do HATE Liberals. Not out of ignorance, but out of fear that their ideas of transnational progressivism will usher in a whole new era of Communism. I want to see their ideology wiped from the face of the earth.
These communists, hiding behind the environmental movement and the peace movement, must be exposed because they are a threat to freedom loving people everywhere. Their ideas that are centered around one principle–letting government control everything. Communism kills, and while I love my country, my government scares the bejesus out of me. The best way to solve just about any problem we have nowadays is to get the government out of it. I will fight these Marxist Socialists and their ideas until the day I die, either of liver disease, lung cancer or eating red meat.
If anyone reading this is offended by it, I suggest you read the Communist Manifesto and see if you think it is full of a bunch of great ideas.
Zachary Spoehr
Sophomore
A clarification on rights
Normally, I don't put a lot of input into discussions on abortion. However, the article on Thursday (“Choice is right,” Thursday, Oct. 17) surprised me because the writer, Matt Hayward, seems to think intelligence equals pro-choice, yet he appeared quite ignorant when it came to the issue at hand.
I don't attend the Campus Crusade for Christ meetings so I don't exactly know what was said at the meeting. Instead, I would like to focus on Mr. Hayward's “felt obligation” to properly inform the pro-lifer's of “what they really stand for.” He remarks: ‘If laws were passed banning abortions, then a woman would not have the right to choose, the choice would've been made for her...I prefer to have all my rights. Pro-lifers don't seem to want the right to choose.”
The central issue here is not the woman’s right to choose whether or not to have the child; the issue is whether or not the child, whom she is in charge of, has a right to life. The woman's choice whether or not to have a child is already decided when she agrees to have sex. It appears to me that it is very immature for a woman to say, “I’ll sacrifice a human life for a good time.” If she is not mature enough to take on the responsibility for her actions (i.e. another living human being), she should refrain from having sexual intercourse.
In this country we often say that we value life, and agreeing with Mr. Hayward, we also all prefer to have all of our rights. Life and the rights (including the right to free choices) that accompany it are staples of American culture. However, all of us are also under the assumption that we can freely exercise our rights, as long as they don't interefere with another person’s right to life and well-being.
We clearly see the unborn child as having a significant amount of worth. If a woman is hit or kicked in the stomach by another person, the attack is viewed much more seriously if she is pregnant at the time. If the child is killed, the attacker is judged even more harshly because he killed a human life.
In this country we are also held responsible for the choices we make. Each act we commit and choice we make shows where we place our values. If some want to place their own sexual needs above human life, they have a serious problem.
Sadly, there are many out there who are selfish, sexually immature, and have no regard for human life. In a culture where instant gratification has become the number one priority, we have sacrificed human lives as the exchange.
Until you're mature and ready to deal with the consequences and responsibilities of your sexual choices, do every human life a favor and wait.
Eric Whitman
Senior, Anthropology & Philosophy
|
|
|
|
|
|
