Net: It appears that one of our current debates revolves around us. Oh well — you control the topics around here.

From Clue Clue: Hey, Hint! Hint!, why do you rip the one lone sanctuary for thought at the U? Network is the only place where people can bash each other about ridiculous stuff without the stale political correctness found in the other 15 pages of the Daily.
For example, I could bash you about not liking squirrel articles. Squirrels are the heart and soul of this column, dammit — you could start a squirrel uprising any moment with your blasphemy. Or by blasting CLA/IT and the geek — er, I mean greek — debates, you have p.o.’d a majority of this column’s readership.
Would you like it if I called you a loser because you wrote to Network? Remember that you just did on Wednesday, and also remember that Network is the most popular column at this hellhole we call the U.
So, Hint! Hint!, get a clue clue and enjoy the same old crap or else the squirrels, NITWIT, PCS, the geeks (I mean greeks), and Buster the Rabid Dog will come after you. Net: Not to mention the assorted squirrel terrorist groups. Beware, we’re all in league, and we know who you are. Onward, frivolity! Y hasta la victoria siempre.

From Mr. Hyde: I disagree with Hint! Hint! Although original thought has its place in the world, it should not be in a school newspaper. Not that I’m opposed to original thought — not at all! However, I have too much on my mind (tests, work, crap) to further cloud my judgement with original thought.
Please! When my professor tells me something, I have no time to figure out whether it is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, moral or immoral. After all, I only have a limited amount of memory, and all of it must be preserved for remembering material that will be on the test. I have no time left to consider anything remotely original. So, I urge you, make Network free of thought or idea! Make it an empty forum of regurgitated crap as we all would like it to be!
Thank you!

From The Active Pacifist: Evergreen spells out an old and problematic argument against religion. The basic problem with the argument is the failure to realize that any powerful concept, such as religion, is vulnerable to abuse. Are we to throw away everything of substance just because of this vulnerability? Why should we take the corrupted versions of powerful concepts to be the authoritative ones?
Different religions are different attempts to express beliefs about God, the nature of reality and the meaning of human life. Some religions may get some of this wrong. It may be true that some groups of people do terrible things “in the name of religion.” But there are also many people who are indifferent to religion and who also do terrible things. It is not religion that causes people to do terrible things — it is some problem with human nature.
Most people who do terrible things try to justify their behavior because they don’t want to admit how terrible they’ve been. Some try to justify it by appealing to (some corrupted account of) religion. Why should we believe them? Why should we let those people tell us what religion is supposed to be? Why not instead lift up what is beautiful, noble and good and say that those are what religion is supposed to highlight and encourage?
My own understanding of religion is that it requires the committed attempt to live one’s life for the good of all. It requires the discipline of constantly looking for what is truly good (in people, situations, works of art, etc.), and then trying to nurture and strengthen that good. Actions that stifle the good or strengthen the terrible are not at all genuinely religiously motivated. Net: Hmmm … watch it, Active Pacifist. You’re bordering on original thought here. Good thing we have folks like Evergreen to rebut you and keep this forum pure! Other thoughts …

From 3-some Boy: I’m going to ignore saying hello to Network Net: But we’ll never ignore you, so, “Hi!!!!!” and everyone else out there and just get on to what I have to say to Evergreen. First of all, I feel extremely sorry for you. If you don’t believe in anything, what do you have to live for? Is the purpose of your life to just go around criticizing people who do have the courage to take a leap of faith and believe in a god?! Go ahead and believe what you believe, but let others have their beliefs too.
I don’t really understand what the point of your letter was either. I hope that you didn’t plan on starting some movement to get rid of religion in the world, because it just isn’t going to happen.
Oh — and about the Mall preachers. I don’t think that it is the worst thing possible for the University. In fact, it’s a good thing. If everyone here truly wants this to be a diverse community that must include all groups and not exclude the beliefs and teachings of Christianity. Thank you — and keep an open mind. Net: We try. And while we’re at it, here are two …

You folks at Network seem to be quite skillful at reuniting people with lost objects Net: Yeah — but we’re still searching for that pesky virginity we misplaced a few years back and I need your help. On Friday night I lost my wallet. I think it fell out of my pocket somewhere in the neighborhood of Centennial Hall. It is black leather and ripped at one end. Net: Nope. You’ll never get your virginity back with that description. The good news is, I had no cash in it. The bad news is, my social security card, driver’s license, credit cards and Coca-Cola card were inside.
If anyone found it I would really appreciate it back and would be happy to give him or her a $20 reward.