 |
|
| Varsity Gym needs usable hours posted |
Anthony Alderman
Graduate Student
aldermanal@appstate.edu
|
To
the Editor:
As anyone who plays basketball in Boone knows,
there aren’t a lot of places to play ball on a Saturday night.
Last Saturday, this caused me some trouble.
I wanted to play and the only place that was
open was Broome-Kirk Gymnasium.
Now, I’ve played there at night before,
and it’s hit or miss whether the place will be open, but I
was in luck.
After shooting around for about 40 minutes, a
campus police officer approached me. The officer asked how I’d
gotten in the building.
“I walked in through the door.” He
asked which door. “I’d walked through one of the many
glass doors right outside and then one of the gym doors.” The
place was open; I just walked in.
The officer then informed me that I needed permission
to be in the building. He waited while I packed my stuff and then
escorted me out of the building. I didn’t argue; he was just
doing his job.
What’s interesting is that there were no
hours posted on any of the open doors leading to the gym.
There are no postings anywhere in the gym listing
open hours.
It is the exact opposite of the pool, where the
hours of use of strictly regimented.
I’m not mad, but if a university building
is open at night that one can use at one’s discretion during
the day, I see no reason why new rules need to be applied at night.
There’s an easy answer: lock all the doors.
I didn’t break into the gym; I walked in.
|
 |
| Smokers: Not morally obligated to
anyone |
Clarence Alston
Senior, Computer Science
262-0716
|
To
the Editor:
In a letter to the editor, David Niehoff (Sept.
24), sounds off on the environmental atrocities, specifically, smoking,
being committed everyday on our campus. According to Niehoff, smokers
“directly affect the health and well-being” of every non-smoker.
Although I doubt second-hand smoke affects the broad range of one’s
well being, I agree it is harmful to one’s health. However,
claiming that every smoker has a moral obligation to protect the
health of non-smokers is ridiculous. In fact, such actions would
be supererogatory on the part of the smoker. Instead, every non-smoker
concerned with preserving whatever little health is lost from inhaling
minute quantities of second-hand smoke, should seek the “clear-air
path” around the smokers. Certainly, those who seek such a
result, that is, obtaining clean air, should perform the positive
action.
Quantitatively, the amount of smoke generated
by all smokers in front of Whitener is little when compared with
the amount of “clean air” surrounding the “poison”.
Cigarette smoke is certainly harmful, but declaring that smokers
have a moral obligation to protect others’ health takes a lot
of spin.
|
|
| Treatment of dogs on campus poor |
Travis Souther
ASU Box 7572
MS1356 |
To
the Editor:
I would like to know why there are so many dogs
on campus being left without water and food.
I walk to my classes and see canines tied up
to trees virtually at every turn. I feel that if you have tied a
dog up to a tree while in class, you are actually hurting the dog
more than you are helping it.
Take this into consideration: Here is this pet
with whom you have worked, played and really made friends. Then
you leave it tied to a tree for an hour or two sometimes without
any water.
The dog is surrounded by strange people petting
it, scaring it half to death. Then it becomes lonely since the owner
is not there to take care of it. It gets thirsty because it doesn’t
have any water, which is a necessity to keeping the dog healthy.
Let it be known that I feel that the way a person
treats their pet, reflects on the type of person they are.
So to all of the people out there not leaving
any water for your dogs, you have no right to treat your pets in
that way.
If you really care for your pets, leave them
at home and play with them as soon as you go home after classes.
So PLEASE, if you do bring your dogs to campus,
leave them with water and maybe even some food, because it makes
me sick to see you mistreat your pets in such a fashion.
|
|
| Defense in the name of peace |
Kreg Goad
Senior
KG45426 |
To
the Editor:
When I observe the trend of anti-war propaganda
in this country, I can’t help but become concerned that people
in our nation want to compromise our defense goals in the name of
peace. The term peace is a noble term, one that should always be
favored over war, but these fine people simply fail to understand
the threat our country faces from Saddam Hussein.
I have no doubt that these peoples’ hearts
are in the right place, but they have forced the topic of Iraq to
become a political issue: liberals against conservatives. I feel
this it not only counter-productive in our war against terrorism,
but shallow as well.
I am a conservative, but above all else I’m
an American. We must be united in this time of crisis.
I feel Hussein has not only aided forces that
pose a threat to us, but he is also in direct treaty violation.
Hussein has made a joke out of the United Nations time and time
again by first daring UN inspectors to find anything, and then throwing
them out for his own personal enjoyment. If this man has no weapons
of mass-destruction, then why has he totally refused UN weapons
inspectors for over four years? It does not take a person armed
with a doctorial degree to realize this man is hiding something.
I’m not asking anyone to be liberal or conservative, I only
ask that we use our brains, and not get caught up in waging war
against one other.
|
|
|
 |
 |
