To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).

The Peak - Wow.

edited March 2009 in General
Finally, an article so bad has appeared that I'm flabbergasted:

http://the-peak.ca/article/17424-public-enemy-the-threads-make

If we even ignored the attempt at "ghetto speak", it still leaves horrible English (newsflash: Apostrophes indicate possessive, not plural), and that's without mentioning the ridiculous content.

I'm ashamed that:
  • This was actually published in the newspaper representing students of an instution of higher learning,
  • That happens to be the institution I go to, and thus, I'm linked to it by association,
  • Other contributors to this paper (including some on this board) now have to be grouped with this kind of crap.
I would expect better from a high-school paper. The Peak would be better off having way less content than content of that calibre (or lack thereof).

Phil
«13

Comments

  • edited February 2009
    Chelsey is my columnist, and I stand behind her work 100%. Her column is about rap culture, and it's place in Vancouver and SFU. I think she writes fine columns, and she provides a perspective we never get any other access to.

    That said, many people were pissed off by her latest column, and you'll be reading two particular criticisms of it, in this Monday's Peak.
  • edited February 2009
    If you want Dickies (assuming you're talking about the brand) go to Zellers. Two pairs of jeans for $29.99 on sale.
  • edited February 2009
    I don't really like her column at all either, she is what we affectionately call in Britain a 'Chav', that said, it is more interesting than some of the stuff in here. It is a lifestyle, I don't really think its really one you find on post-secondary institutions though.

    You don't need JJ McCullough brand of offensive content to make a paper interesting...but some of the stuff in here is really boringy or unnecessar. "Do the hustle: the secret to successful ineterismo" was a complete waste of two pages.

    The Gung Haggis Fat Choy wasn't really necessary as well, since the even was already over.

    I think the media section of the paper is way too long, talking about movies and tv as well.

    I remember that issue a while back where they did some retro version of the paper and pretended to be in a different era or something, it was the quickest I ever skimmed and threw a peak in the trash.
  • edited February 2009
    I agree on almost everything randomuser just pointed out. From the first paragraph to the last.
  • edited February 2009
    I am glad to see that I am not the only one who think that her articles are, as we say in Britain, 'rubbish'.
  • edited February 2009
    I want to have a conversation with the author and see how long I could go without breaking into hysterical laughter.
  • edited February 2009
    I feel bad for saying this, but the fact she is a blonde white girl is probably part of the reason I don't like it...if it was someone black I might not feel the way I do about her column.
  • edited February 2009
    She's trying so hard to be controversial...half of her "ghetto" terminology doesn't even sound right. Like, who really talks like that other than a whigger lol
  • edited February 2009
    JayDub;46928 said:
    I am glad to see that I am not the only one who think that her articles are, as we say in Britain, 'rubbish'.
    they say rubbish in australia as well.
  • edited February 2009
    randomuser;46923 said:

    You don't need JJ McCullough brand of offensive content to make a paper interesting...
    No, but they do need it to drum up infuriated rebuttals so they have something to print for the next few days.
  • edited February 2009
    PhilB;46916 said:
    Finally, an article so bad has appeared that I'm flabbergasted:

    http://the-peak.ca/article/17424-public-enemy-the-threads-make

    If we even ignored the attempt at "ghetto speak", it still leaves horrible English (newsflash: Apostrophes indicate possessive, not plural), and that's without mentioning the ridiculous content.

    I'm ashamed that:
    • This was actually published in the newspaper representing students of an instution of higher learning,
    • That happens to be the institution I go to, and thus, I'm linked to it by association,
    • Other contributors to this paper (including some on this board) now have to be grouped with this kind of crap.
    I would expect better from a high-school paper. The Peak would be better off having way less content than content of that calibre (or lack thereof).

    Phil
    If you think that's bad, then you obviously haven't seen the humour section yet.

    That said, The Peak hasn't been good in a long while now.
  • edited February 2009
    PhilB;46916 said:
    Finally, an article so bad has appeared that I'm flabbergasted:

    http://the-peak.ca/article/17424-public-enemy-the-threads-make

    If we even ignored the attempt at "ghetto speak", it still leaves horrible English (newsflash: Apostrophes indicate possessive, not plural), and that's without mentioning the ridiculous content.

    I'm ashamed that:
    • This was actually published in the newspaper representing students of an instution of higher learning,
    • That happens to be the institution I go to, and thus, I'm linked to it by association,
    • Other contributors to this paper (including some on this board) now have to be grouped with this kind of crap.
    I would expect better from a high-school paper. The Peak would be better off having way less content than content of that calibre (or lack thereof).

    Phil
    News flash: "newsflash" is properly two words, colons never introduce lists, unless it's through an independent clause (i.e. where you could logically end a sentence with a period), and apostrophes can also be used for contractions (you probably knew that though :wink:) :angel:

    Anyways, I've read that article in that paper (whose name I won't mention here, simply because I've always referred to it as "that detestable rag") and I've come to a few conclusions: you can be offended by somebody's incorrect use of language, you can correct a person for speaking or spelling improperly (you might end up looking like an asshole, but I do it anyway :shade:), but you can't knock somebody for speaking or writing the way he/she does. Maybe in a hundred years people won't look upon that article with such contempt, because by that time language would have evolved and the improper usage would have become standard :teeth:
  • edited February 2009
    the only thing that bothered me was how she broke lululemon into Lulu Lemon.. :angry: if that girl had any cogent fashion sense in the first place.. she wouldn't have spelt that wrong.. or maybe she was trying to be humorous.. crude nonetheless...

    and the only "ho" i know used in such context ends with an e.. :confused:
  • IVTIVT
    edited February 2009
    At first i thought Phil was making a fuss over nothing. Then i read the whole article...

    319047856_dbf1ef3e92.jpg
  • edited February 2009
    siuying;46956 said:
    the only thing that bothered me was how she broke lululemon into Lulu Lemon.. :angry: if that girl had any cogent fashion sense in the first place.. she wouldn't have spelt that wrong.. or maybe she was trying to be humorous.. crude nonetheless...

    and the only "ho" i know used in such context ends with an e.. :confused:
    I'm quite comfortable in my lululemon pants right now, and I'm not a hoe*. Even if she is trying to be humours as satire, it's not working well, and shes coming off as a poser, instead of funny.
  • edited February 2009
    I thought it was a joke at first too, but then I saw the rest of the article and her other columns.
  • edited February 2009
    randomuser;46963 said:
    I'm quite comfortable in my lululemon pants right now, and I'm not a hoe*.
    Sheeple.
  • edited February 2009
    Don't knock them until you try them, they're comfortable and I was wearing them before they were so popular.

    Although they exported their labour to china which sucks, theyre still high quality and material.
  • edited February 2009
    .... but i like girls in lululemonm, so she can go to hell.
  • edited February 2009
    Ether;46980 said:
    I thought it was a joke at first too, but then I saw the rest of the article and her other columns.
    Is this a persona she adopted or is that really her? When I read a couple of sentences I thought the Peak took the column from some other college newspaper.
  • edited February 2009
    It was a horrible article. At least I feel a bit better about my own writing now.
  • edited February 2009
    randomuser;46963 said:
    I'm quite comfortable in my lululemon pants right now, and I'm not a hoe*. Even if she is trying to be humours as satire, it's not working well, and shes coming off as a poser, instead of funny.
    agreed.. i adore lululemon but their prices these days are just outrageous.. $89 for a hoodie? o.O"

    and i'm not calling you a hoe for wearing it (in case there's been some misinterpretation) just pointing out her usage of ho vs hoe was unflattering..
  • IVTIVT
    edited February 2009
    randomuser;46963 said:
    I'm quite comfortable in my lululemon pants right now, and I'm not a hoe*. Even if she is trying to be humours as satire, it's not working well, and shes coming off as a poser, instead of funny.
    pics or gtfo!
  • edited February 2009
    randomuser;46985 said:
    Don't knock them until you try them, they're comfortable and I was wearing them before they were so popular.
    Yes they're comfortable. Still doesn't warrant anyone buying yoga crap.
    randomuser;46985 said:

    Although they exported their labour to china which sucks, theyre still high quality and material.
    That would imply protectionism is a good thing, it's not.
    illicit;46987 said:
    .... but i like girls in lululemonm, so she can go to hell.
    You haven't seen fatties in spandex.
  • edited February 2009
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by randomuser
    Although they exported their labour to china which sucks, theyre still high quality and material.
    That would imply protectionism is a good thing, it's not.
    I can see this thread about to turn into something about the economy or the market
  • edited February 2009
    I am sick of seeing every girl either wearing TNA or lululemon. I don't care to see all these fatties in such tight clothes. Trying being original too.
  • edited February 2009
    I hate bitches
  • edited February 2009
    The only part of the article I agreed with was the fat chicks in spandex.
  • edited February 2009
    JayDub;47005 said:
    I am sick of seeing every girl either wearing TNA or lululemon. I don't care to see all these fatties in such tight clothes. Trying being original too.
    Okay, for all you guys saying we should be original, how many of you guys wear brand name running shoes, or jeans :smile:? And I think lululemon is a bit better than TnA, one of them has a healthy living philosophy, while the other is just about showing TitsNAss
  • edited February 2009
    siuying;46994 said:
    agreed.. i adore lululemon but their prices these days are just outrageous.. $89 for a hoodie? o.O"

    and i'm not calling you a hoe for wearing it (in case there's been some misinterpretation) just pointing out her usage of ho vs hoe was unflattering..
    Oh I meant she was trying to call us hoes because she apparently prefers to wear baseball hats and oversize-hoodies.

    I think the quality of lululemon has gone down since they started manafacturing in china, they used to have really intricate designs and you can tell a lot of it is mass manafactured now, its a shame. It still beats a lot of other places though :confused:

Leave a Comment