I used to read a lot of newspapers A LOT. Now I just keep track of things online. I want to get back to reading papers, but my general reading time has been caught up by school readings (goddamn history courses).
I WAS an avid reader of The Peak because if its many hilarious student letters and articles. However, since J.J. McCullough took over, I have read less because the articles became somewhat more dull and less lively...
Their serious articles are lame. I don't want to read about "Bird watching", or "Planning a trip to Africa" or "How to live like a vegetarian", or whatever it is they publish these days.
Also, their humour section blows donkeys for nickels. In any given issue, they'd be lucky to get one comic that's actually funny. Sometimes the humour columns are good, but rarely.
There are interesting articles once in a while so I do flip through and see whats going on, but it's completely unrelevant to most student's at SFU...too much politics and too little student focus. I'm glad talkSFU is here, I bet we could write way better stuff than those geeky peekies :D
ive read it a couple of times but most of their articles are pretty lame...the opinion articles are interesting some times but id say the best part of the newspaper is the text msg's in the back lol
...too much politics and too little student focus. I'm glad talkSFU is here, I bet we could write way better stuff than those geeky peekies :D
I totally agree with you. The Peak right now is more like an anti-SFSS blog than a student newspaper.
lazyguy said:
ive read it a couple of times but most of their articles are pretty lame...the opinion articles are interesting some times but id say the best part of the newspaper is the text msg's in the back lol
The Opinions were great when Warren Haas was Peak Editor. When Haas was running the paper, it was great because 25% of the paper was student articles and a few of their own pieces. However, after the new guy took over, they started running less and less Opinions...
The humour section is just terrifying. The editor should be tossed for being so blatantly incompetent and unfunny, even more so when you compare him to former editors like Curtis Lassam or Mark Little.
I just read the latest issue yesterday, and the humour section was filled once again, with shitty paintjob comics that are neither funny nor clever, they're just embarrassing. Whoever keeps submitting needs to stop... or be shot. Oh, and that "faux-news" article that won the contest? If that was the best our school could do, then we should just scrap the whole humour section right now, cause it wasn't so much funny, as it was just plain crap.
I didn't know Curtis Lassam was a former editor, I know him, more or less, in person and he is a big douche.
Well, that's what I've been told. All I know, is that I've read some of his work, and it's pretty damn hilarious. I think the comics are trying to be clever, funny and confusing like xkcd, but the writers just simply forgot to add in the clever and funny.
I WAS an avid reader of The Peak because if its many hilarious student letters and articles. However, since J.J. McCullough took over, I have read less because the articles became somewhat more dull and less lively...
Its because hes an ultra conservative douche bag...he is SOOOOO creepy
I know JJ and he's a good guy. He's not an "ultra-conservative." He's very close to me, in most respects, and I'm certainly not an ultra-conservative. He's also ten times the writer that Warren Haas was, not just in terms of the content he tackles, but the skill with which he approaches it. Haas wrote half-page rambling nothings about shoelaces. He was a Dave Barry wannabe, sans talent. The opinions section is almost half the paper, now, and JJ is always willing to print rebuttals or criticisms of his own writing. What more do you people want?
I'm glad talkSFU is here, I bet we could write way better stuff than those geeky peekies
i personally think hes an elitist asshole but maybe thats just me, i dont know him personally as a friend, but things ive heard him say and read what hes wrote he sure comes off that way
i think his facebook status a while ago was something like: "I want to work in retail so i can turn my brain off"
i know some random other tid bits here and there from a few people but no dirty talk on talksfu
Speaking of which, wouldn't it be cool if we could read peak-style articles on talkSFU, but in "blog" format? It would be easier for writers to publish their work and it would be a lot more efficient than publishing a newspaper and delivering it all over campus and creating garbage...most of the stacks don't even get read unless you're bored or waiting for class or something. Just a thought
Er.. what do you mean? The peak already puts every issue online in text form, and some of us do have blogs. Are you suggesting that we start a "talksfu" school-related-blog-paper?
I know JJ and he's a good guy. He's not an "ultra-conservative." He's very close to me, in most respects, and I'm certainly not an ultra-conservative. He's also ten times the writer that Warren Haas was, not just in terms of the content he tackles, but the skill with which he approaches it. Haas wrote half-page rambling nothings about shoelaces. He was a Dave Barry wannabe, sans talent. The opinions section is almost half the paper, now, and JJ is always willing to print rebuttals or criticisms of his own writing. What more do you people want?
I write for it semi-consitently. How dare you! :p
I hated his Scientology article in the recent issue. From what I gathered from it, he either doesn't understand how dangerous Scientology really is, or he's an idiot. Plus, what does he expect the internet to do about terrorists? We can't exactly DDoS their homepage and send clever, pun-filled death threats to their caves now can we? And even if we can, I'm pretty sure they're too plotting to kill all infidels to care.
"Oh no! The internet is protesting us! Fuck! I guess we should really stop with all this killing infidels shit."
And I agree with randomuser, he definitely comes off as an elitist.
I hated his Scientology article in the recent issue. From what I gathered from it, he either doesn't understand how dangerous Scientology really is, or he's an idiot.
You think Scientology is more dangerous than militant Islam? His point was: where were these people when Muslims were burning embassies over cartoons? Where were these people in support of Salman Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Where were these people when Theo Van Goeh was murdered?
Scientology is dangerous to the Scientologists, but it's not dangerous to the world. Scientology owns no nukes, and controls no governments. There is no Dianetics-based genocide currently ongoing. His point was: prioritize. You can hate Scientology, but how about some perspective?
Personally, I think he's wrong about why people do it. It's not because it's obscure and thus "cool" to oppose. I think it's because it's a white religion, which makes it OK to hate. A brown and black religion like Islam is harder for ultra-liberal pussies to protest.
I liked the Susie and the City (was that the title of it again??... some kind of phrase linked to Sex and the City) column and the rest of the opinion pieces. Sometimes I laugh at the text messages... I keep on telling myself I am going to text the Peak and I never do. The very back page of the Peak can be good... it's hit or miss for me.
i laugh at the texts too!! i had the urge to go text a emo msg or some really creepy one so for the heck of it.. but yeah.. never got around to do it.. the thank you and screw you section is something i look at.. it's nice to see someone wanting to screw exactly the same thing you had in mind.. it makes my day.. :shade:
You think Scientology is more dangerous than militant Islam? His point was: where were these people when Muslims were burning embassies over cartoons? Where were these people in support of Salman Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Where were these people when Theo Van Goeh was murdered?
Scientology is dangerous to the Scientologists, but it's not dangerous to the world. Scientology owns no nukes, and controls no governments. There is no Dianetics-based genocide currently ongoing. His point was: prioritize. You can hate Scientology, but how about some perspective?
Personally, I think he's wrong about why people do it. It's not because it's obscure and thus "cool" to oppose. I think it's because it's a white religion, which makes it OK to hate. A brown and black religion like Islam is harder for ultra-liberal pussies to protest.
No, I think it's more dangerous than Amway.
I understand his point, and I think it's wrong. You shouldn't expect the "internet" people to fight over stuff like terrorism or religion. You expect them to fight over things closer to their hearts, such as censorship, freedom of speech, politics, copyrights laws. And there are many great examples of this.
Who was a big help to get Obama the democratic ticket? People from the internet, they were amongst the biggest supporters, and most importantly, the biggest donars. Same thing goes for the Copyright debacle currently happening in Canada right now, the bloggers were the ones who first got wind of this and organized campaigns to stop it, they're the ones who got people to write to their MPs and party leaders. They're the ones putting up the fight against the new Canadian copyright laws.
I fully understand what he's trying to say, but I believe that he's completely wrong. Certain people are used to fight certain battles. You can't expect these people to fight terrorism and religious incidents, or anything involving war, mostly because the people responsible for all of that, won't listen to us, or even care. Like I said before, what does he expect the internet to do about terrorism? Does he think we'd honestly have any effect on eliminating it?
You shouldn't expect the "internet" people to fight over stuff like terrorism or religion. You expect them to fight over things closer to their hearts, such as censorship, freedom of speech, politics, copyrights laws. And there are many great examples of this.
And those are related to Scientology .. how?
If anything, the Danish cartoons were a huge issue of terrorism, religion, free speech and censorship - exactly what the "internet people" should be fighting for.
Why are you talking about internet people? He mentioned Anonymous, but the article was about a physical protest outside Vancouver's Church of Scientology.
Also, "internet people" is just "people." people on the internet care more about copyright law than they do about a nuclear apocalypse? Really?
You think Scientology is more dangerous than militant Islam?
At least moderate Muslims would sit down and chat with me reasonably while ALL Scientologists will be asking "What are (my) crimes?" and snap my pictures to Fair Game my ass if I criticize their "religion."
Comments
Their serious articles are lame. I don't want to read about "Bird watching", or "Planning a trip to Africa" or "How to live like a vegetarian", or whatever it is they publish these days.
Also, their humour section blows donkeys for nickels. In any given issue, they'd be lucky to get one comic that's actually funny. Sometimes the humour columns are good, but rarely.
I just read the latest issue yesterday, and the humour section was filled once again, with shitty paintjob comics that are neither funny nor clever, they're just embarrassing. Whoever keeps submitting needs to stop... or be shot. Oh, and that "faux-news" article that won the contest? If that was the best our school could do, then we should just scrap the whole humour section right now, cause it wasn't so much funny, as it was just plain crap.
If train wrecks like these are considered humour in our school...
http://www.the-peak.ca/article/3568-lolphabet
Then god help us.
I didn't know Curtis Lassam was a former editor, I know him, more or less, in person and he is a big douche.
i think his facebook status a while ago was something like:
"I want to work in retail so i can turn my brain off"
i know some random other tid bits here and there from a few people but no dirty talk on talksfu
"Oh no! The internet is protesting us! Fuck! I guess we should really stop with all this killing infidels shit."
And I agree with randomuser, he definitely comes off as an elitist.
Scientology is dangerous to the Scientologists, but it's not dangerous to the world. Scientology owns no nukes, and controls no governments. There is no Dianetics-based genocide currently ongoing. His point was: prioritize. You can hate Scientology, but how about some perspective?
Personally, I think he's wrong about why people do it. It's not because it's obscure and thus "cool" to oppose. I think it's because it's a white religion, which makes it OK to hate. A brown and black religion like Islam is harder for ultra-liberal pussies to protest.
I understand his point, and I think it's wrong. You shouldn't expect the "internet" people to fight over stuff like terrorism or religion. You expect them to fight over things closer to their hearts, such as censorship, freedom of speech, politics, copyrights laws. And there are many great examples of this.
Who was a big help to get Obama the democratic ticket? People from the internet, they were amongst the biggest supporters, and most importantly, the biggest donars. Same thing goes for the Copyright debacle currently happening in Canada right now, the bloggers were the ones who first got wind of this and organized campaigns to stop it, they're the ones who got people to write to their MPs and party leaders. They're the ones putting up the fight against the new Canadian copyright laws.
I fully understand what he's trying to say, but I believe that he's completely wrong. Certain people are used to fight certain battles. You can't expect these people to fight terrorism and religious incidents, or anything involving war, mostly because the people responsible for all of that, won't listen to us, or even care. Like I said before, what does he expect the internet to do about terrorism? Does he think we'd honestly have any effect on eliminating it?
If anything, the Danish cartoons were a huge issue of terrorism, religion, free speech and censorship - exactly what the "internet people" should be fighting for.
Also, "internet people" is just "people." people on the internet care more about copyright law than they do about a nuclear apocalypse? Really?