In the interest of working on my personal brand and SEO, you can now find So Bitter It’s Sweet at www.stephaniefusco.com/blog !

Don’t worry, all your favourite posts & comments are still there.

Steph

Here are our ads (you can click on the thumbnails to make the graphics bigger)

- Educational Flight –

- Mobilization Flight –

- Flaws in the Current System Flight –

We had a lot of fun putting the ads together, and learned a lot about iMovie, Photoshop and MMP along the way.

An incident that came to a head this week at Queen’s has made this a serious question.  Over the past few years, Queen’s has become known as a campus that, according to many, is chock full of Islamophobia, white privilege, racism, and bigotry.  I’m not going to deny that the campus is full of incidents that are largely questionable and oppressive, but I do think the way the AMS has been handling complaints leaves something to be desired.  In such a climate, both the University and the student government attempt to quell any potential incidents as soon as possible, often leaving their common sense behind.

At AMS Assembly last week, the executive announced that an event planned for Tuesday March 30, entitled the SUMO SHOWDOWN was to be cancelled due to complaints and an apology had been issued on the AMS website. (check it out here).  The apology rings true, although it is filled with a bunch of terminology that many students will scoff at and likely won’t understand.  However, I understand from a public relations perspective why the AMS had to issue such an apology and stop the event.  Even so, I think the AMS has started down a slippery slope.

(Sumo wrestling costumes, much like those the AMS planned to use.
Photo courtesy of Flickr)

The thing I find most worrisome is a quote from AMS Communications officer Brandon Sloan in the National Post coverage, where he states, “We would never want to host and event that would offend some members”.  Newsflash, AMS.  Every event, every action, every statement is going to offend SOMEONE.  The AMS is setting a dangerous precedent by essentially saying anything that offends is unwanted on campus.  How about exploring toleration?

In my second year philosophy class, we explored the issue of toleration.  The example that sticks out is one of pornography.  We were given a situation involving three individuals: A pornographer, a Muslim man, and an average person who runs a newsstand.  The pornographer relies on pornography for his livelihood.  The average person running the newsstand does not necessarily agree with pornography, but realizes that other people enjoy it, so he sells it anyways.  The Muslim man is deeply offended by the very existence of pornography and has stated that he cannot tolerate its existence.  In fact, he is offended by the very fact that there is a business in his neighborhood that sells pornographic materials, and wants it shut down.

Who must tolerate whom in this situation?  In the case of the AMS, the person who has decided they cannot be contented with merely tolerating a situation that is greatly beneficial to some and insignificant to others, is the winner.  Even if these people would be able to go on in their day-to-day lives knowing that, for example, on Queen’s campus and in many other parts of the world, Sumo costumes are used, their opinions and feelings must prevail.  With this in mind, how far will the AMS go to prevent offence and ignore the idea of toleration?

I wonder if they will prevent the QP from serving green beer on St. Patrick’s day, given that the holiday has been appropriated from the English and turned into a mockery of the struggles of the Irish people.

I wonder if they will have lists of banned words or phrases as an appendix to Bourinot’s Rules to ensure no one who attends Assembly is offended.

I wonder if they will change frosh week to prevent any and all pelvic thrusting, suggestive language, events that prevent those who are not able to participate.

I wonder if they will cut funds to the SHRC and prevent them from holding events because many on campus don’t believe in premarital sex or are offended by homosexuality.  Going even further, the SHRC gets AMS Student fees, some of which go towards their pro-choice abortion accompaniment program, where they send a volunteer to accompany a woman to her abortion.

I wonder if they will cancel Vogue and Rogue.  Just yesterday, the AMS Twitter account advertised that the Vogue Charity Fashion Show committee application deadline had been extended.  Given the backlash that both Vogue and Rogue, a show designed to showcase non-traditional beauty, received, should the AMS refuse to support fashion shows on campus?

Should our student government refuse to support any venture that might possibly prove controversial and, thus, offensive?

The answer is no.  Let the protests happen.  Let people engage in the discussion and debate many of these events are meant to provoke.  Realize that an incident such as the Sumo Showdown is not going to incite an uprising in the student body.  It’s easy to complain, but many are content to just do so and will not go any further.  With this in mind, by all means, try to remain as inclusive as possible.  Just don’t take every instance of ‘offence’ as a means to back down and apologize.

EDIT: If you haven’t read this piece by a former AMS president, then please do. It’s fantastic and says everything I wasn’t able to say.

I am nearly certain that, if there were such a show, I would be starring in it.

Social networking sites, email accounts & blogs have become the new under-the-bed shoebox.  As we become increasingly reliant on our online existence, it is only natural that we also form a growing attachment to things that exist online.  Everyone has felt that pang of loss when your computer crashes, taking all your photos and class notes with it, but how will we feel the day Facebook is gone?  What effect will it have on us to delete old emails or Facebook albums?

I predict nothing short of the pangs of regret and longing felt by those hoarders as the cluttered contents of their living rooms, garages, basements and attics are purged…with perhaps the added benefit of relief and closure.

Last week, I decided to block all of my Facebook albums (barring three mostly featuring my dog as a puppy), tagged photos, and videos from everyone but my closest friends.

(the author’s Facebook photo pages, before & after the purge)

While this had the ultimate effect of cleaning up my digital footprint and online persona, especially since you can’t always control what other people post online about you, it also blocked off a part of myself that I had displayed online for the past five years.  Facebook made the decision earlier this year to reduce the wall-to-wall feature to a certain number of posts, essentially deleting all ‘ancient’ correspondence with our friends online.

Did we have a right, as users of this social networking site, to keep our content safe?  Do we have a responsibility to keep this kind of content up for others who may have deep-seated interest in it?  Should I have kept up all my albums, numerous from my years as my friend group’s resident paparazzi, so that my friends could maintain their own online identity and digital attachment to them?  I am certain that, once people realize the albums are gone, the pleas to have them return will be as vehement as those from image-savers asking for certain photos to be taken down.  A housemate of mine had a similar experience when a former housemate ‘defriended’ her, a casualty of which was all photos taken of her from second and third year.  While my housemate was originally a bit infuriated, she’s come to terms with the fact that the photos were probably not the most flattering and do not show her as she’d like to be seen professionally.  We are at a point, as millennials entering the workforce, that we must strike a careful balance between digital attachment and our online professional identity.

While it may make sense to keep old content others may have a vested interest in, what about content that has become inherently personal?  We routinely delete mundane emails, but what about those that we keep for sentimental reasons?  I no longer use my Hotmail account to receive messages, but I will admit that I keep it up and running because it houses folders full of emails from old beaus and friends that are no longer as close.  While it’s great to have these memories, I can’t help but feel that my online life is ‘cluttered’ because of their existence.  It would be great to finally streamline and have only two email accounts (personal & professional).

With regards to blogging and online creative content, I haven’t taken down my old Xanga account.  Even though it contains ridiculous amounts of embarrassing, teenage angst-y content, I consider it a sort of online diary, a snapshot of my life in high school.  Someday, I think I’d like to look back and laugh on those photos from ex boyfriend’s proms and those thinly veiled references to my crush of the moment, followed up by messages in solidarity from my girlfriends.  But, really, do I want everyone to be able to look back on those often-awkward memories?

(The author’s highschool Xanga, with identifying details removed to protect the innocent)

As we are forced to censor our online selves, for the sake of our professional relationships and opportunities, as well as for closure, what stays and what goes?  Dealing with digital attachment will become necessary as our inboxes fill up and we trade our fan-girl (backstreetgirl16) Hotmail accounts for more professional handles.  My advice?  Keep everything, but keep it close.  Blocking off your Facebook albums and making your old Xanga private is a great way to keep the memories but prevent them from hurting your professional life.  And those emails from exes?  Do what I plan to do – print them off, stuff them in an envelope, and file them away in that shoebox full of unrequited love under your bed.  That’s where they belong, after all.

This ad from Old Spice is a nice departure from the usual female objectification we see in advertising.  Although it does play to stereotypes (Diamonds, anyone?), it’s also unique in that it is selling the product to a consumer outside its target market (girlfriends, rather than the men who use it).  If anything, it is “sticky” and not soon forgotten!

There’s something to be said for continuity.  The Budweiser Clydesdale Superbowl commercials have always been a favourite of mine, and not only for the cute animals.  The latest comes second only to the Rocky ad, showing Hank with yet another friend.  It may be cliche, but it truly seems that Hank (the pony) has grown up before our eyes.  I look forward to seeing what Hank is up to next year and, for this reason, will be looking out for the Bud commercial.  The horses might be a gimmick, but they work!

Ah, the infamous Dodge commercial.  I should hate it (and you should think I’d hate it, based upon previous blog tirades), but really…I don’t.  It caught my attention.  It was pretty funny (a lot funnier than the spoof the angry feminists released, might I add…), and the juxtaposition of the roaring vehicle with the quietly angry men was fantastic.  It got people talking, it got the product out there, it was memorable.  Ladies, we get the men in the tight pants fighting over a football – let the men have their creative and fairly hilarious (if the slightest bit sexist) ad.

Who doesn’t like babies? The E-Trade babies series was both adorable and sticky (outweighing the creepy talking baby factor).

That’s all for now! Check back soon for my take on Tiger Wood’s press conference (topic suggested by my Humber PR interviewer!) and what I think he should do next.

Sure, I spent my younger years in a male-dominated (both in numbers and patriarchal fashion) family, calling my brother, father, uncles, cousins, & innocent passerby names that ran the gamut from “sexist pig” to “chauvinist” (just imagine how well THAT went over…), thinking that was the way to make a change.  After that brave showing of activism, I shied away from referring to myself as a feminist, given that the term reminded me of the angry, shaved-head activist stereotype.

It wasn’t until I took a women’s studies course that I learned feminism need not be radical, divisive, or ‘crazy’.

Yes, there are professors and students of women’s studies who blame men for all the downfalls of our sex.  Yes, some of these individuals engage in a fair amount of man-hating.  Unfortunately for women’s studies critics, these are not the norm.

What is most unfortunate is that these minor, stereotypical instances of what the study is perceived to be have not only permeated the media but been reinforced by a national newspaper.  The editorial in the National Post last week (find it here) was more than just thoughtless drivel and poor writing.  It displayed nothing but a lack of compassion and knowledge, and seemed to have no purpose other than to attempt to incite rage in the feminist population to prove their dated point – that all feminists are angry, man & authority-hating bitches.

Unfortunately for the National Post editorial board, the reactions incited by the piece have been more along the lines of logical analysis and rebuttal although many, myself included, remain furious.

The Walrus said it best,

“thank you National Post Editorial Board. The next time we’re called upon to defend our common sense, we’ll point to your editorial and leave our opponents to figure out the rest.”

It is unthinkable that a national newspaper, in this day and age, should feel justified in expressing the opinion that to consider women and men equal, apart from genitalia and reproductive organs, is the work of vengeful, out of line feminists and should be discouraged.  Moreover, they ascertain that hiring quotas that encourage equal representation of men, women, and minorities in the workforce are useless.

The National Post should be ashamed of itself.

Pictured: Male university students ironically wearing their “This is what a feminist looks like” t-shirts during Orientation Week 2006

As long as we have men prancing around in t-shirts emblazoned with the phrase ‘this is what a feminist looks like’ (worn ironically, and even as part of a Halloween costume), we need women’s studies.  As long as women are without equal pay, we need women’s studies.  As long as people believe that all these classes teach is man-hating, we NEED women’s studies.

More than anything, we need feminists. Don’t be afraid to speak up for what is right for fear of being labeled a radical feminist.  The only radical thing about feminism is that it works.

As such, Tiger Woods’ marriage isn’t the only thing that has been affected by the recent media storm surrounding his infidelity.  As the weeks drag on, his many endorsements are coming under fire, with companies dropping him as more details are released and Woods’ image drifts further away from what the company seeks to align their product with.  While Accenture, Gillette, Gatorade, & A&T have essentially permanently ended their relationship with Woods, Tag Heuer, a watch company that initially dropped Woods’ ads within Australia, has released a statement that it is “downscaling the use of his image in certain markets for a period of time, depending on his decision about returning to professional golf”.  Which ever way the companies are spinning it in the media, one thing is clear: when a celebrity screws up, when their stock goes down, sponsors will drop them.

However, while the companies may have dropped Tiger for current and further advertisement of their brand, the fact remains that Woods will be forever associated with their brand.  Given this, I wonder whether using a celebrity endorsement for a product truly has long-term merit.

Companies have forever attempted to create a ‘lifestyle’ with their product.  Ads show potential consumers how a product will change their life – either by showing a consumer that they are behind the times by not using a product, that using such a product will increase their status, or various other ways a product is indispensible to living the good life.  When a celebrity endorsing a brand is scorned by the media, either for something as superficial as weight gain or for reasons such as infidelity or criminal activity, the bad publicity automatically translates to the brands they are aligned with.  As has become quite evident in our tabloidized culture, any tiny thing is significant when dealing with celebrity media and publicity.  Celebrities tend to be fickle creatures, making me wonder why companies take the risk of aligning their brands with celebrities.  Is SmartWater the brand for cat-loving spinsters, as their choice of Jennifer Aniston as a spokeswoman may suggest?  Should you buy a Tag Heuer watch so you know what time to call your wife to lie about your whereabouts while you’re out with your mistress, just like Tiger Woods? While these probably aren’t the thoughts advertisers planned on consumers having as a result of their ads, their choice to use celebrity endorsements leaves their ads open to interpretation in a way an anonymous face might not.

Now, I don’t mean to discredit the positive effect celebrity endorsement can have on a brand.  However, I do believe that having an implicit rather than explicit endorsement from a celebrity is probably more beneficial in the long run, especially given the volatility of celebrity stock.

Take, for instance, how Starbucks has skyrocketed into its position as a ‘lifestyle’ brand.  The constant onslaught of photographs of celebrities holding the ubiquitous Starbucks cup has, in no way whatsoever, hurt the brand.  If anything, it has become that little piece of luxury that people are willing to shell out over $6 a day for, if only to taste that aspect of elite that a Second Cup or Tim Hortons cup simply does not offer.  However, you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who would associate Starbucks with a celebrity in rough times and refuse to support the brand because of it.  It remains that a celebrity using a product in their day-to-day life and it being recognized, in whatever small way, has a larger effect than them getting paid to say they endorse it.

As a result, I think true endorsements, those used in daily life, are far more effective than explicit, paid endorsements from celebrities. Just like anyone else, a celeb is more than happy to gush about a product they are happy about.  Word of mouth and social graph endorsements hold far more water in the end than a Photoshopped ad or a spot free of ad-libs.

In this social climate, it remains that although celebrity endorsements seem to be the way things are going, advertisers and brands should continue to rely on the time-honoured tradition of building brand loyalty through word of mouth and implicit endorsement.

(Photos courtesy of Sexy Cigs &  vivre vite et mourir jeune on Flickr)

By using Twitter, you are opening yourself up to dialogue, information, news, and relationships you may not have had by limiting yourself to other social networking and media sites.

the author’s own Twitter feed

I’ll admit, my first experience on Twitter felt a bit stalker-ish.  IN my POLS 393 class last year, Professor Jonathan Rose (@JonathanRose) asked if anyone Tweeted and was met with a room full of blank stares.  Being the curious person I am, I found his Twitter and ‘followed’ him.  As a Twitter newbie, and being used to Facebook where ‘friending’ someone essentially makes your life quite public and opens you up to creeping, I felt a little awkward doing so.

Making the decision to follow my professor led to me to a whole slew of interesting people on Twitter.  Take, for instance, Professor Sidney Eve Matrix (@sidneyeve) who teaches Film 240 and is what many would consider a social media maven.  By following her on Twitter, I became aware of a course I did not even know existed (through her recommendation that I take it) and which has quickly become a favourite.  Through her Twitter feed, I happened upon Beth Daniher (@bethdaniher), a former Queen’s student who I recognized by name and face from my experience as an Orientation Week leader but have never actually spoken with.  Beth is a current student at Humber College for PR and I have found her tweets so useful as I determine what sort of graduate program I wish to go into next year.

This is only a small example of the vast opportunity for learning and interaction afforded by Twitter usage.  And so, the question remains. Should you Tweet?

YES! You should Tweet!

1. You find yourself interesting
   (see: Ashton Kutcher, @aplusk)
2. You find other people interesting
3. You want to keep in touch with friends without the incriminating photo evidence of Facebook
4. You hate wading through the news online but like to know what’s going on
   (@CNNbrk, @HuffingtonPost, @GlobeCampus, @QueensJournal, @QueensU, @kingstonist, @torontoist)
5. You like it when news anchors air your Tweets on the 11:00 news, to the horror of your father
   (@LRobertsGlobal)
6. You are a student and your professors have Twitter (@JonathanRose, @SidneyEve) and maybe even your Principal (who happens to be quite interesting & loves Queen’s trivia @QueensPrincipal)
7. You like to know what your student government officials are up to
   (@AZabrodski, @MichaelCeci, @Leslie_Yun, @MorganSCampbell)
8. You like a good laugh
   (@PeterMansbridg, @shitmydadsays, @TeenieTuxedo, @VoiceInPMsHead)
9. You’re a politician and you like to let people know about your platform & what you’re up to
   (@DrEricHoskins, @MichaelIgnatieff)
10. 10. You are the pet of a politician
    (@Cheddar_Harper)
11. You have a blog/website/feeling/organization you’d like to promote
12. You want to be considered digitally savvy by employers
13. You don’t have enough applications on your iPhone/Blackberry and are looking for just one more.

NO! You should not Tweet!

1. You like to be out of the loop
2. You are boring & think everyone else is boring, too
3. You think Facebook is professional
4. You don’t like learning what people in your industry have to say
5. You are a politician and have nothing nice to say….ever.
   (@SueAnnLevy)
6. You are a politician and like to dispense sexist advice to young girls
   (http://tinyurl.com/m8tt5t)
7. You are an NFL player or are in an NFL stadium. After one too many mishaps, and fears about their TV contracts, the NFL has banned Twitter in many cases.

So go ahead. Tweet. Make a name for yourself in the social media world and learn valuable communications skills. When you only have 140 characters to make your point, you learn to be succinct and engaging. What do you have to lose?

Some Twitter tips

1. Use your real name! People like to know who they’re following.  Not only does it add legitimacy to your account, but you might also get some pretty cool perks out of it.
2. Keep it professional. This will come up in a Google search. This is a great opportunity to shape your online identity – it isn’t often that you get to control what comes up about you online!
3. If you can’t be professional, lock your Tweets. But, seriously, Twitter makes no sense if you lock your posts.
4. Don’t Tweet about your lunch. Unless you’re the voice in Stephen Harper’s head, no one cares.
5. Follow people you find interesting and people you want to be more like. Ask them questions, Re-Tweet what they post, engage.
6. Find your niche and stick to it.  If you’re Tweeting about something other people are interested in, your follower base will grow and you’ll get more out of the Twitter experience.
7. Use the #hashtag feature to link quickly to other posts where people are talking about the same topic. Likewise, use the ‘search’ and check out the ‘trending topics’ to find out what’s hot.
8. Use the new “lists” feature to check out your favourite followee’s lists – you’ll probably want to be following many of the same people.
9. Have fun! Not every post has to be a link to a serious news article or a new blog post. Give your Tweets some personality.

So go to http://www.twitter.com and make a name for yourself in the social media community. It’s that easy.

PS. All the @names in this post link to the person’s Twitter page. Enjoy!

For many who have followed Fauxcoming in the news, it would appear nothing had changed.  Numerous students were arrested, debauchery was witnessed, and the cancellation of Queen’s University official Homecoming weekend was met with nothing more than contempt and spite-partying.  Surprisingly, this was not the case.  However, this did not stop the media from perpetuating the pre-conceived notion many outsiders have of homecoming, stopping at nothing to reinforce the stereotype of unruly, drunken university students instead of reporting what actually occurred & admitting that most students seem to be more concerned with preserving the tradition of Homecoming weekend than boozing and brawling on a 2-block residential street.

Inflammatory journalism forces students to put out fires in the coming years
(Photo courtesy of StoneMonkey, Flickr)

Most disappointing was the main coverage by the Queen’s Journal, specifically, the article syndicated in the Globe & Mail on Sunday morning.  After following the very promising coverage online on Saturday night (as I sat around my kitchen table with new and old friends, celebrating my final undergrad Homecoming in the best way), I was flabbergasted when I awoke to find opposing taglines on the Globe & Mail article (About 2,000 people turn out for boozy street party, which had attracted as many as 8,000 rowdy revellers in past years) and the Queen’s article… both written by Journal staffers.  It is unfortunate that, given the opportunity to clearly and articulately influence the national view about the so-called event, the authors chose to fuel the homecoming fire instead of using the window of opportunity to cast Queen’s in a favourable light.  While the interesting and well-reported “Overheard on Aberdeen” and Aberdeen Live-Blog/Tweet gave a full scope of what happened on those 2 blocks of pavement Saturday night, the articles were sorely lacking in the reports of police brutality, Queen’s spirit, and general student attitude towards the night.  This, accompanied by the photos which showed not happy, spirited students but a large police force, drunk eyes, and arrests, added to the impression that this night was no different than any other Homecoming Saturday night in the last 5 years or so.  (Author’s note: My favourite photo?  The beautifully ironic one of the confiscated horse toy)

What really happened?

Most students stayed off Aberdeen.  There have been numerous reports of police brutality against students, lending to the impression that the police were here to prove a point – not to preserve peace.  Charges were laid for jaywalking, swearing, standing on the sidewalk, and other minor ‘offenses’.  Those simply walking through Aberdeen (allowed, since the police were purportedly here to keep the street ‘open’) were subject to physical and verbal abuse by the police, not to mention excessive use of the mounted forces.

Luckily, these instances are not going unnoticed.  In the wake of lacking positive reporting on the event, students have taken to YouTube, blogs, Twitter, and their Facebook statuses to tell their side of the story.  Unfortunately, none of this can make up for the gaffe made by the Journal reporters featured, and the general consensus of the mainstream media. As a result, Queen’s students are on trial for yet another year, and will have to endure continued scrutiny & abuse in the lead-up to and the event itself.

This post is also featured on the course blog for FILM240

Consider yourself lucky.  After three fantastic years of Homecoming experiences, I was thoroughly depressed when I witnessed what was being touted as a fantastic alternative to the September festivities.  I have always looked forward to Homecoming, and not for the reasons many would think.  I’m not an Aberdeen supporter.  While I stop by to take a look, I don’t find pleasure in being crammed onto two blocks of SWAT-team-bordered, fenced in street with 5,000 of my closest friends.  I also don’t enjoy having to form a human chain to make sure my friends don’t get lost or trampled, illegally urinating in some unfortunate person’s backyard due to lack of facilities and ability to leave, or having to duck when beer bottles soar over my head (although I will admit I could not wait for Homecoming to roll around in first year for specifically these outrageous experiences).  Instead, I like Homecoming for what it is meant to be – seeing the alumni come ‘home’ to Queen’s, sharing their experiences, and re-living the experiences we are still fortunate enough to be a part of.  This year, the only contact I had with Queen’s alum was the poignant moment when I witnessed an aged Engineering alumnus in his mustard yellow jacket wandering on Earl Street alone, looking at the pile of rubble with windows that was Phase I of the Queen’s Centre.

NOT TRADITION (Photo courtesty of stephentaylor.ca)

Each year, I have attended the Homecoming football game, sharing it the first year with my floor, second year with my frosh, and third year with my housemates.  Each year, I have had an immense surge of pride at seeing the most senior of alumni, eyes brimming with tears, being driven around the track at Richardson Stadium in golf carts while waving to thousands of cheering students.  In fact, during a recent conversation with some fourth year and recently graduated students, we all agreed that the best part of Homecoming is the interaction we get to have with the alumni – whether at the football game, the QP, walking around campus, or even, as the case may be, during kegstands on Aberdeen.  This year, I’m faced with the reality that I may never get to experience this myself, and that this very special moment where we are movingly connected as students with the alumni is gone.  I will never get to experience the tradition of Homecoming.  In fact, I may be relegated to doing the Oil Thigh alone in my bedroom each September to retain my connection to the school.

TRADITION (Photo the author’s own)

What will canceling Homecoming mean for Queen’s and the City of Kingston?  Well, I certainly don’t think it will prevent the infamously large street party.  As evidenced by a Facebook event created likely mere moments after the cancellation announcement was made, students will be taking to the streets out of spite – if anything, the party will be more rambunctious and dangerous, as police struggle to contain and arrest thousands of drunken revelers.  Connection between alumni and Queen’s will suffer, and donations will likely take a hit as a result.  And, let’s face it, Homecoming is the only time anyone gets out to see the football games and our currently 3-0 boys could use the well-deserved support.  But, most importantly, beyond the financial and sports-driven context of Homecoming there is that Queen’s tradition that drew most of us to the University in the first place.  Homecoming, especially once you have graduated, is the cornerstone of that tradition.  It is easy to lose touch once you’re gone, but knowing that each year you can return to campus and re-live what were likely the best days of your life is a welcome comfort.

While the Queen’s PR and AMS drones may spout that Spring Reunion 2009 was a success, let’s think about this in a different way.  Why bother coming home if there’s no one there to greet you?

SIDENOTE:

Please stay in this Homecoming weekend and stay off Aberdeen.  The only way we can convince the administration to bring back the real Homecoming is to let this Fauxcoming go off without a hitch.  Where’s the fun in police, ponies, teargas & tasers, anyways?

also posted at: Always OUA .

mentioned at: CIS Blog and Out of Left Field