In a way the "Fuckstick" letter had a point, but theyre still being arrogant pricks by assuming Alec and Stian are in the "Helen Clark fanclub".

Its people like that Id like to write witty intellectual repsonse letters to pwning their ass.

+

All the hatemail;

Hate#1: not sure what Rachel was talking about but if she was tring to imply Garlands year was good I have this to say "STFU AND DIE"

Hate#2: again assuming they speak for everyone, this person just needs to take Thor up the ass.

Hate#3: is just messed up.

Hate#1

Cunt.

I did most of my writing for Garland. Admittedly i'm a shitload better now, but that year was formulaic in my writing development.

i personally really enjoyed garlands editions. thats not slight on alec on stian, who i think are aware that people dont just want depressing realism. i do, however. i hate the attitudes of most of my peers. does that make me better than them? yes. yes it does.

Oh man, I hated Garlands year.

He turned me into one of those "your magazine is shit!" whiny cocks, mostly cause I was 2nd year and 1st year had greeted me with Honest Colins parade of toilet humour and constant poo jokes (which I loved :))

Craccums image to me has always been non-serious, Garland seriously fucked with that image.

Garlands year was very important to Craccums history. He followed on from Susan (who couldnt write or edit and only got involved cos she was being dicked by Dr John) and Colin (who was just a tard who didnt want to be editor. Yes he can/could write but never did in his whole year as editor. More pooh jokes anyone?).

Colin and Susan almost destroyed the Mag as no-one was wanting to be involved with such a purile publication (and here I mean advertisers).

Garlands year was very 'vanilla'. But at the time it was needed. It was needed to allow the advertsing team to get people back on board. It allowed Alan and Hannah to be who they wanted to be. If there hadnt been a Garland year Alan and Hannah couldnt have got away with what they did.

But the 'your magazine was shit' year was that of the pooh-man and the Craccum bike aka Colin and Susan

Well I liked Colins year "Susan who?"

Garland was far too serious, who wants to read political interviews every fucking week?

*snore*

Hmmm... good thing you're a moderator Fez my dear boy. <_<

dont worry, Im probably the only one to enjoy his year so Im not going to make a fuss, a little surprised I seem to be alone in thinking Garlands was the definition of boredom though.

I loved honest colin, he was a legend.

Garland was pretty serious. I didnt mind it, but I didnt look foward to reading it.

You are right... Garlands was lacking on the interest front, as I said... very vanilla. But it served a purpose.

However how you can say Colins was good when it was pooh joke after pooh joke interspersed by Keesings ramblings I dont know. Purile is the word I used and I stand by it

I didn't even read craccum during the susan/colin years

i hear what youre saying about garlands being boring. but i think, when you're at university, theres a point you have to leave behind the crass porn and 'life of a sadist' shit, and get involved. universities are historically places of revolution and political action, possible because the student body has a lot of time on its hands and is supposedly intelligent enough to be interested in the outside world. im constantly disappointed when i hear some of the articles this year criticised ) because they have too many words, and they're not about drugs or sex. personally, i think if you want drugs or sex, you should buy porn and fhm. politics can be funny too, if thats all people are interested in. but the entertainment i see people getting from gay engineering pages is pathetic, to be honest.

There needs to be an inbetween, I hear ya having NOTHING but poo jokes got tired fast and NOTHING but political interviews and bullshit articles on battery chickens got VERY OLD VERY FAST, but in order to keep everyone happy there should be a little of both.

Yeah Im one of those that thought some of the serious pieces this year were too much Toby, I didnt critisise it was just too much to read and not enough to get interested in.

Now something like Ryans Anarchy piece, that was a good read.
A very interesting read.

If I read Craccum and learn something from it, I am consumed with rage. Craccum is not for learning!

John's year was fucking rad. He was and remains a good friend of mine.

Colin & Susan had some good moments. And I cut my teeth writing for Colin about terrorism, so he was pretty cool. Colin is a good dude for a vegan.

I wrote a shitload for Garland... Pretty much a column every single magazine if I recall. I've submitted extracts from those columns and won writing competitions so you can eat my ass if you think it was shite. His content was often too serious and anal for craccum, but that was probably offset by Colin and I being weekly columnists.

I started off strongly for Alan and Hannah, but it seems Alan and I had a minor altercation when drinking and for some reason I was no longer welcome in the office. Hannah turned into a psychotic who seems to think I have very violent tendencies so that year was pretty much a write off. Their content was largely a rehash of John's year anyway.

Alec and Stian are producing a geniunely good magazine with a lot of interesting content. I am writing better than I have ever written before. And they let me crash the segway. And they drink with me a lot.

They're pretty much the raddest.

And you're there with the tissues when things go bad

So gutted I missed out on Dr Johns year, I was in Canada for that, all my friends raved about it.

Thank you!

Thats all I was trying to say

somtimes when its been a long day and youve been thinking heaps, the last thing you wanna do is more thinking about serious issues. I think its good to take a break and laugh at stupid things.

calm down dude, I find *x-rated* and *poo* humour hilarious. But i do like the serious articles as well. The problem is not that ppl enjoy simpleton humour, is that they don't care about the more important stuff. I take it your not a fat hairy beer skulling eng then aye? Me neither :)

Yes!

Also what Im trying to say

Dont you guys have mirrors for that? ;)

:stupid:

hmm. when people say things are too seirous 'for craccum,' i think people have different ideas fof what a uni magazine should be. to me, it should be serious in nature period. but maybe thats coz im a cunt. dunno.

thats too serious.

Well...it's a magazine, not a journal..besides someone has to pay homage to students...

I simply don't like subjective journalism, if you're going to say something serious just give me the facts and let me make up my own mind, don't put your own fucking agenda in there. That's just me though, I don't like the media trying to play on my emotions.

yup :P

typical right winged scum's opnion, everyone when someone reveals the evil of right wing ideals, they bring up the *subjective* excuse. Your kind needs to die.

what the fuck are you talking about kittenslayer??!

Yes, and I'm sure the leftists have done nothing wrong.

Why the fuck does wanting a truly 'free' media make you scum?

Slayer, you should work at fox.

Maybe I'd like all journalism to be balanced, not just leftist journalism. And again, at least according to politicalcompass.org, I am a MOTHERFUCKING LEFTY.

Oh, and I'm throwing in a warning for your implying that I am scum.

There's always going to be some agenda in any article that has political content. Just so long as it's well written and honest enough that there's something to argue back to. That's all you can ask.

I like it best when Craccum mixes serious well-written content with hilarious bullshit. Doing a good job + not taking yourself too seriously = class.

yeah i agree with that. but the frustrating thing is some people, as is there absolute right, flick through it to find the gay porn and dirty jokes. i guess my delusions of bright articulate educated people sprinting around university are dissipating.

there is no such thing as objective journalism, really, is there? like howard zinn says, the same can be said for accounts of history, accounts of war, accounts of any event. but thats to me what makes things interesting, is hearing what other people think.

I'll settle for at least a half-assed attempt at objectivity.

Thats what makes a good historian, is the ability to see beyond the writing itself to what actually happened (or what was most likely to have happened).

My beloved Edward Gibbon was the man at that, which is why the Church hated him of course...

Ok, so slightly off current topic, but only just read the start of this thread...........so.............Don't even get me started on Garlands year, i swear to god, you won't be able to shut me up.........but here it comes anyways :rant:.............

i've said it once before, and it got me fired by Garland, but Craccum was a tool for him to get a job writing for Metro magazine or [insert mainstream populist medium here].........the man, whilst naieve and "honorable"(so he thought) drove the fine tradition of student journalism into the ground, down there with the Listner(goddamit too drunk to figure out how to spell it correctly!) and the herald and metro..........if i fucking wanted to read about Rodney Hide or any other governmental tool i would buy the herald or watch the six o'clock news, i'm sorry but totally not intellectually challenging at all, mainstream.....boring..........plus he had no mangement skills whatsoever and had no idea at how to deal with contributors........plus can you say God Complex???? Arrrgh, now i'm all riled up just remembering the year that was Garlands year, thank God for Alec and...........well, thank God for Alec ;) And Ryan, and on another note, don't get me started on Allan or Hannah, having to work with them was like working with two ADD Hyenas, fucked up........but if you want to know anything bout them, just ask.....ok, so, sorry bout the long post..........touchy subject........... <_<

I heard a rumour that Nick Keesing and Brad Luen(I think thats his name) were running together to be co-editors of craccum next year. they have my vote. what a dream-team.

there was one cool bit in Garlands year - one week when Honest Colin submitted a photo of his column written on his chest in vived. so random.

I love his cynicism, you can just see he wants to blast all kinds of bullshit but refrains from doing so.

ah so you're reading it at last?

I love that British restraint he uses when he has a go at other historians. There was a great quote I had, but I have no hope of finding it now :cry:

And he died of one of his testicals being as big as a watermellon. so awesome.

I'm half way through it. Right now he's explaining how the episcopal structure of the Catholic church formed for the benefit of the bishops.