A Disappointing Second
We were eagerly awaiting the new edition of Woodchips, to see if our premier issue and its suggestions had any impact on the paper-formerly-known-as-the-Graffiti. Imagine our dismay when we read two childish, witless articles, full of contradictions and slander, wholly given over to denouncing our paper. We had no idea that our creative effort had evoked such panic and fear. After reading the two articles, we decided to revise our paper to include a rebuttal, because we felt that there were some points we would like to address. For instance, the author’s allegations that our paper was full of lies and chicanery (E maybe you should look that one up, Sid) are totally untrue. 99% of the information contained in Here Title Place was extracted from the first issue of Woodchips! I guess that means they feel their own newspaper is "false, wrong, misinformed, erroneous, faulty, inaccurate, groundless, mistaken, and deluded".
As for us not knowing "at least a smidgen of background" in what we are talking about, we routinely talk to prefects, SAC and sports team members, to name a few, in order to be sure that what we are running is the truth. In cases where we cannot positively substantiate a fact, we indicate that it may be speculation. So far, we have done that once. Also, it seems our writer-friend at the local paper would have liked us to run our articles past his team, to squeeze them through the tireless Woodchips filter, before "resorting" to the HTP. He complains that we never gave them a chance. Well, adjectiveboy, the truth is that you've had your chance. It was called "Place Title Here" - remember? The fact that we were driven to conjure up our own paper is testimony to the uninspired, administration-provoked, watered-down drivel which was published in September.
We are hard pressed to think of a reason why the editors of the Woodchips feel so threatened by the presence of an alternative publication, that they should attempt to discredit us by making poorly founded allegations, and by calling into question the need for our opinions ("don’t bother"). It is equally baffling to us how a group of students taking the initiative to do something productive could be cast in any light but a positive one. Of course, any member of the student body, or Woodchips staff has the right to comment on any material published in HTP. Your input is appreciated. It is the Woodchips’ insinuation that our opinions are somehow unnecessary which bothers us. The way that our official school newspaper recklessly lashed out at the very students it is meant to represent shows their ignorance of the fact that the value of student press lies in its ability to be used as a way to allow students to express their opinions, not as a means to write-off the opinions of others as unnecessary.
Anyone who feels that our paper is a "problem" must hate free speech or think Uncle Joe Stalin was a real hipster with good fashion sense and some bright ideas. The editors and staff of our paper hope that this article will get our point across and avoid the kind of long-standing feud that Blur and Oasis are mired in, which is slowly ripping apart the fabric of British society, and indeed the world. We will continue publishing Here Title Place, so cut the crap, quit whining, and get used to it.