############################################################
     The Student Voice   Issue 1, No. 4   10.25.1996
############################################################

          QUOTES OF THE WEEK

"All the problems of the world could be settled easily if men were only
willing to think.  The trouble is that men very often resort to all sorts of
devices in order not to think, because thinking is such hard work." 
          -- Thomas J. Watson

"Why should freedom of speech and freedom of the press be allowed? Why 
should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow 
itself to be critisized?  It would not allow opposition by lethal 
weapons.  Ideas are much more fatal things than guns.  Why should any 
man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious 
opinions calculated to embarrass the government?"
          -- Nikolai Lenin

"To limit the press is to insult a nation; to prohibit the reading of 
certain books is to declare the inhabitants to be either fools or 
slaves."    
          -- Claude-Adrien Helvetius

"But words are things, and a small drop of ink,
Falling like dew, upon a thought, produces
That which, makes thousands, perhaps millions,
think."
          -- Lord Byron

############################################################

          TABLE OF CONTENTS

     I.   Voice announcements

     II.   "Have you heard the one about. . . ?"

     III.   Profile of The Voice writer, lupos

     IV.   Essays
              "A Response to Tony Pittarese"  - Leibniz
              "More Musings by lupos" - lupos

     V.   The Past Week's Comments From Our Readers

############################################################

          VOICE ANNOUNCEMENTS

>>> We are interested in recieving "guest essays" from you to be published in
The Student Voice essay section.  If you would be interested, contact us via
e-mail to let us know what your ideas are, and we will go from there.  WE
ENCOURAGE ESSAYS FROM THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH US.

>>> The Voice has gained eleven new readers this week, and there is a
possiblity of another 50+.  Our goal of 100 by Thanksgiving is about to be
reached!

>>> If you do not regularly recieve The Student Voice and would like to, let
us know, and we will put you on our regular mailing list; if you do not want
The Student Voice, let us know.

>>> We are particularly interested in sending this newsletter to pastors,
school administrators and other teachers who could contribute to this
discussion.  Please let us know of any who would be interested in recieving
The Voice.

############################################################

          HAVE YOU HEARD THE ONE ABOUT. . .?

<<< This is the segment in which we pass along interesting "PCC stories,"
stories you just can't get, or appreciate, anywhere else on earth!

<<< Story from K---.
     One day back when, I hate to admit, pegged pants were the "in" thing,
PCC had a rule against wearing pegged pants.  Well, one day I was walking
from Coberly South to the Administration building, and out of one of the
second story windows I saw a Dean (no longer there) staring at me from the
window.
     I proceeded to walk into the Administration building, and before I even
got through the doors I noticed this Dean running, yes, running towards me.
 He came up to me, out of breath, and asked me if my pants were pegged.  I
said yes and that I would fix them.  He refused this idea and sent me back to
my dorm room to change plus he wrote me up a demerit.
     Yes, I was wrong (the merits of this rule notwithstanding).  But is such
earnestness warranted to write someone up for such a petty offense?

>>> Well, this is a good question.  Earnestness to write someone up for a
petty offense simply should never occur in a civilized society of adults.
 The Voice.

############################################################

          PROFILE OF LUPOS


Single, 20s; Male; A youngest son.

Occupation:  Medical Field

1.)  Self-portrait: Phlegmatic melancholy.  Introspective to a fault.   

2.)  Motto: "You Can't Know."

3.)  Walter Mitty Fantasy: To be Batman, but isn't that everybody's.

4.)  Favorite inspirational people: C.S. Lewis, George Mueller. 

5.)  Bad habits: Trying to figure out what makes other people tic.

6.)  Pet peeve: Double negatives, hyperbole, and various other abuses of
     the English language.

7.)  Hobby: Writing, painting, music. 

8.)  Luxury defined:  Time to pursue things besides money.

9.)  Favorite TV program: "The Simpson's"

10.)  Favorite books:  The Count of MonteCristo - Alexandre Dumas; The
Kneeling Christian - An Anonymous Christian.  

############################################################

          ESSAYS

          1.     "A Response to Tony Pittarese"
                     - Leibniz

Below is text from the page of Tony Pittarese regarding The Student Voice.
 Following this text is a Response from Leibniz of The Student Voice:

<<<<< What about StudentV?
Site last updated: October 21, 1996
Several times in the last month I have been asked by people both in person
and through email [sic], "What about this StudentV?  What do you know about
him/them?  What do you think about what he is doing?"  Although no one has
asked about this, some have probably noticed that the origin of much of the
work at this web site occurred during the same timeframe [sic] when StudentV
began his "work."  Some have also noticed that StudentV's WWW page links to
this site.  Can't anything be done about that?  Well, in answer to many of
the above questions, let me respond:
WHO IS THIS STUDENTV OF WHICH YOU SPEAK?
StudentV claims to be a former student at PCC who publishes an "underground
newsletter."  The author(s) choose to hind [sic] behind a cloak of anonymity.
 The newletter [sic] is published in a pseudo-intellectual style and
dispenses more errant than correct factual information.
HAVE YOU SEEN STUDENTV'S WORK?
Yes, I am acquainted with the work of StudentV.  Within a short time of his
"popping up" I was informed of his work by 3 friends.
DO YOU KNOW WHO STUDENTV IS?
No, I don't know who StudentV is.  I have a very strong suspicion due to some
email [sic] I received from some people about the time StudentV's work began.
 It is nothing more than a suspicion however.
AM I IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH STUDENTV?
No, I am not in any way connected with StudentV.  (Apart from the fact that
we both seem be [sic] have a mutual connection with PCC.)  This web page and
his work are totally unconnected.
DOES STUDENTV GET NAMES FROM THIS WEB PAGE?
I suspect that he does get some email [sic] addresses from this web page.  If
you do receive email [sic] from StudentV after having you [sic] name added to
this list, please contact me so that I can pursue that in accordance with the
policy of this page.  It is a copyright violation for anyone to use this page
for the purpose of mailing a newsletter or other related solicitation.  If he
does send you unsolicited email, ask him to stop.  If he refuses, send a copy
of your second request to "postmaster@aol.com".  Sending unsolicited email
[sic] is bad netiquette [sic] and generally considered grounds for removal of
service.
IS STUDENTV A CURRENT PCC STUDENT?
It stands to reason that if I don't know who it is, I can't really answer
that question.  Personally, I believe that he probably is a recent graduate.
 (Specifically a person who graduated within the past two years.)  I believe
he does however have people "helping" him that are current students.
BUT STUDENTV SAID FOR CERTAIN HE WAS AN ALUMNUS!
Well, that doesn't necessarily mean it's so!  StudentV's credibility is
lacking.  In fact, early publications of his "work" indicated that he was a
current PCC student.  Now, he claims to be an alumnus.  Although there is a
circumstance where both of these statements could be true, I am doubtful of
that.  StudentV plays games with the truth on this issue.  This is not
unusual - StudentV plays with the truth on many, many issues.
ISN'T STUDENTV'S CAUSE "JUST"?
Let's set aside for a moment the legitimacy or illegitimacy of his claims.
 What is the Biblical pattern given for seeking correction in situations like
StudentV is crusading?  I'm aware of no Biblical directive admonishing
anonymous rabble-rousing as an acceptable remedy.  For all of his pretence
[sic] of godliness, StudentV's cloak of anonymity is his biggest betraying
characteristic.  A true man of honor would gladly sign his name to his
beliefs (a la Martin Luther).  (He would also follow the Biblical pattern for
correction of a brother, which this person obviously has not.)  One should
legitimately question the motives of an anonymous individual publishing a
newsletter replete with half-truths and outright falsities.
WHAT SHOULD OUR RESPONSE TO STUDENTV BE?
That's an issue for each of you to decide.  I do know that he has received
many emails [sic] in praise of PCC and its work.  Apparently those get lost
in his inbox.  Personally, I've asked StudentV to not send me anymore of his
junkmail.  A speaker without an audience soon gives up the desire to speak.
 StudentV has proven that he is capable of twisting words with the best of
them.  His lies cause me to doubt anything he says.  I'd recommend that you
take the time you might spend writing to him and pray for him instead.
CAN YOU GET RID OF HIS WWW PAGE?  CAN YOU REMOVE HIS LINK TO THIS PAGE FROM
IT?
Unfortunately, the answer to both questions is no.  Part of the concept of
free speech on the Internet is that unless someone says something that falls
outside the realm of protected speech (libel, etc.), nothing can be done.
 The content of his page is totally his to control, just as the content of
this page is totally mine.
BUT WHAT HE SAYS MAKES ME MAD!	
That's what he desires.  If you find yourself getting mad, just stop and
refuse to - don't give him that satisfaction.  It should be of no surprise to
anyone that PCC has "enemies."  Anyone who appeals to the lowest common
denominator will certainly find ample fodder for publication.
ARE THE THINGS THAT STUDENTV SAYS TRUE?
I suppose some of it may be, but the last "edition" of his "newsletter" was
full of outright lies about policies and misstatements about past events.
 StudentV apparently does not believe in fact-checking of any sort and simply
assumes that information sent to him is correct. As with all things, consider
the source.  An anonymous individual with the track record of "factual
reporting" as demonstrated by StudentV should be accorded the respect due to
anyone in that position.
P.S.  Keep in mind that this web page is a private work of its author and is
in no way officially connected with Pensacola Christian College and its
related ministries.  The author of this page is expressing his own personal
views which may or may not happen to coincide with the above named entity.
Copyright 1996 by Tony Pittarese.  This document may not be quoted or copied
without the express consent of Tony Pittarese.  Failure to comply with this
directive is a violation of Federal copyright law.  Quotation requests for
the purpose of review or fair comment should be directed to Tony Pittarese.
>>>>>

Dear Mr. Pittarese:

     We checked out your page a few days ago in response to some information
we received from one of our readers.  We were told that there was a "PCC
page" with some information about The Student Voice.  We sent a message to
this person asking what the page was because they didn't say anything about
where it was or whose it was.  We received no response for a few days, so an
announcement went into the next issue of The Student Voice requesting
information about the page.  The announcement indicated that we had not seen
the page and therefore did not know what it contained.
     A day or two after the issue went out, we received a message from the
same person who had originally informed us of this "PCC page."  The writer
asked why we had lied about not seeing the page, indicating it was yours.  At
the time, none of us here at The Voice recalled having seen the page, only
sending an e-mail to you requesting a list of alumni.
     This past week we finally got some time to check out the page, and once
we pulled it up, I, Leibniz, remembered having looked at it briefly back in
the middle of the summer sometime.  We then immediately sent a message
clarifying the mistake to the person who gave us the original message, and we
are informing you of this mistake publicly.
     We are really trying to figure out why this is such a big deal, whether
we saw the page once or not.  But a friend of yours obviously thinks it is a
big deal, and there is a possibility that you do as well.  Therefore, in our
attempt to maintain the highest level of accuracy and honesty, we readily
admit the mistake. 
     For those of you who have no idea what this is about, simply put, we
told one person in a private e-mail that we had never seen Tony's page, but
when we were able to take a look at it this past week, I, Leibniz, realized
that I had briefly seen it once back in the middle of the summer.  I had not
remembered seeing it; it was an honest mistake.  It is irrelevant to either
Mr. Pittarese's page or our newsletter.

THE CONTENT OF THE PAGE.

     In all of this page's ceremonious degradation of what was on our
original page, you have not pointed out one single thing that is wrong with
what we have said, nor have you pointed out one single error of fact.  (The
error we were just referring to was made in a private transmission to one
individual.  It was never made public via a page or an issue of The Voice,
neither was it pointed out to us by you.)  The space and attention you have
given us with this page has raised a substantial interest in what we have had
to say, and it has thus increased our readership.  However, to state our
general objection to the content, we feel it is an extreme
mischaracterization and nothing but character assassination.  The legal
ramifications will be addressed at the end of this Response.
     We would, though, ask that if you are going to criticize us, please be
more specific.  You level a good many charges at us on this page, yet you
fail to give us one single example of the things of which you complain.  We
do not at all mind criticism.  We do, on the other hand, mind character
assassination.
     Now, about the substance of your page. . . .
     You write, "Although no one has asked about this, some have probably
noticed that the origin of much of the work at this web site occurred during
the same timeframe [sic] when StudentV began his ‘work.'" 
     Please do not flatter yourself, Mr. Pittarese.  We learned of your page
through our own readers and on a completely independent basis.  We created
our original page and the newsletter with no help from you or your page, just
for the record.  If you recall, at the time our page began, you did not have
a list of alumni available on the page itself; in fact, the list we requested
in early August via e-mail was rejected by you.
     You write, "The author(s) choose to hind [sic] behind a cloak of
anonymity.  The newletter [sic] is published in a pseudo-intellectual style
and dispenses more errant than correct factual information."  
     First, for the record let it be noted that this is the FIRST assertion
or implication on your page saying that we are liars.  This will be addressed
separately in the Legal Ramifications section.
     Second, we do not "hind" [sic] behind anything.  Our anonymity is for a
very specific purpose, and we will address this later when your statements
bring the subject of anonymity up again.
     Third, you characterize our "style" as "pseudo-intellectual."  By
characterizing our style as "pseudo-intellectual," you apparently are saying
that our STYLE is not intellectual.  The style is "fake" or "false"
intellectualism.  Now, as far as the style goes, a style cannot be "pseudo"
anything.  It either is or it is not.  Whether the SUBSTANCE is intellectual
is another matter, for this is essentially what you are getting at.  Whether
or not something is "intellectual" in its content is purely a matter of
opinion.  In your opinion, what we write is not intellectual.  That is fine.
 We welcome differences of opinion.  We do appreciate you reading our
material, though, in order to come to this conclusion.  However, there are
plenty of other readers who DO consider our material intellectual in content.
 Who is right, Mr. Pittarese?  You, or numerous others who disagree with you?
 If it is you, perhaps you would like to explain to these individuals, and
us, why we are all wrong in thinking The Voice is an intellectual
publication.
     As for the "more errant than correct factual information," would you
please let us know what it is that is incorrect?  These broad charges are
difficult to address and change if we do not know what they are.  As far as
we know, we have stated nothing that is factually incorrect.  We readily
admit that procedures and policies change, and therefore, they may have
changed since we were there or since we were last told they existed.  But
this is precisely one of the purposes of our newsletter - to see some much
needed change.  We would love to hear that various policies we have
criticized have been changed.
     A common trait of those of you who disagree with us, though, is to claim
that we make factually incorrect statements, yet you never state which
statements those might be.  As we do with most, if not all people who make
this charge, we request that out of fairness to us you publicly state what
the factual inconsistencies are.  It is one thing to say that we are
factually incorrect; it is quite another thing to specifically point out what
those errors are.
     You write, "No, I don't know who StudentV is.  I have a very strong
suspicion due to some email [sic] I received from some people about the time
StudentV's work began.  It is nothing more than a suspicion however."  
     We recognize that you very well may have a suspicion as to who the
editors of The Voice are, but we would like to assure you that you do not
know who we are.
     You write, "I suspect that he does get some email [sic] addresses from
this web page. . . .  It is a copyright violation for anyone to use this page
for the purpose of mailing a newsletter or other related solicitation."
     First, copyright as it relates to this page.  Copying your page into
this issue of The Voice IS NOT a violation of federal copyright law since the
reason it has been copied is so that The Voice may make a fair criticism.  We
realize that at the bottom of your page you state that if anyone would like
to make a "fair comment" they must check with you first.  This is not true
under the federal copyright laws.  In order to be completely fair (because we
are often said to "twist" people's words), we have included the entire
relevant portion of your page out of fairness to you, Mr. Pittarese.
     In copyright law there is what is known as the "fair use doctrine."
 This doctrine is derived from Title 17 of the United States Code, Section
107.  It states:

[Section] 107.  Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [defining exclusive
rights], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by
that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright.  In determining whether the
use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be
considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work. . . .
(Emphasis added.)

     We will not insult your intelligence by explaining what this statute
means, but if this is not clear enough, there are cases which explicitly
support our position.  We would be more than happy to supply you with them if
you so desired.  Since we are copying this page in order to make a fair
criticism, we are violating no federal copyright law.
     Second, copyright as it relates to the list of names and e-mail
addresses for "solicitation" purposes.  First, up until two days ago, we did
not use your page one time to acquire names, primarily because the only time
we saw the page was in the summer when it contained no list.  Since our
attention, however, has been drawn to your page due to your comments about
us, we have decided to use the list to send this letter and a complimentary
issue of The Voice to every member on your list.  We will let them decide if
they want to be on our permanent list or not themselves.
     Using a list of names for solicitation IS NOT a violation of federal
copyright law.  Again, there are several cases which explicitly make it clear
that the use of name and address lists in copyrighted materials IS NOT
protected by federal copyright laws.  This is primarily because name lists,
while not in their compilation form, are publicly available and not original
creations of the author of the copyrighted work.  The purpose of copyright
law is to prevent the theft of someone's original work at the originator's
expense.  First, even if we were "stealing" either of these two components,
as far as we can tell, this would result in no monetary loss to you.  In
fact, if anything it would increase the number of visitors to your page,
hardly something the copyright laws were created to prevent.  Second, the
list of names is public information, not your own creative work (as
previously mentioned).  Therefore, your statement of copyright law is
factually incorrect.
     So, if you are going to criticize us for factually incorrect information
which you have not specifically pointed out, please correct your own
factually incorrect information which we HAVE specifically pointed out.

     You write, "Sending unsolicited email [sic] is bad netiquette [sic] and
generally considered grounds for removal of service." 
     This, too, is not entirely correct.  Much of the e-mail people send back
and forth is "unsolicited."  If unsolicited e-mail was in fact "bad
netiquette [sic]" and "generally considered grounds for removal," then no one
who found your list would be able to e-mail anyone else on that list because
it would, in fact, be "unsolicited."
     We think what you meant is that it is bad etiquette and generally
considered grounds for removal if you continue to sent people e-mail AFTER
they have explicitly requested that the mail not be sent.  This is, and has
been, a policy of The Voice since the very beginning.  We find it interesting
that you are so concerned about people not reading The Voice, yet even after
you requested that we send you no more "junkmail," you still continue to read
our newsletter!  For the benefit of everyone reading this, and to refresh
your memory, your request for us to discontinue sending you information was
made way before we ever sent out our first issue.  Yet you refer to issues
and information that is contained in them, and we assume that since you are
concerned about us not putting anything in our newsletter that we haven't
verified ourselves, you must be doing the same thing as well.  If you would
like to receive our newsletter yourself instead of through friends, please
let us know.
     You write, "StudentV's credibility is lacking."
     This is the SECOND time which you have either explicitly or implicitly
called us liars. We will deal with this in the Legal Ramifications section
below.
     You write, "StudentV plays games with the truth on this issue.  This is
not unusual - StudentV plays with the truth on many, many issues."
     This is the THIRD time which you have either explicitly or implicitly
called us liars.  We will deal with this in the Legal Ramifications section
below.
     You write, "I'm aware of no Biblical directive admonishing anonymous
rabble-rousing as an acceptable remedy."
     We are likewise aware of no Biblical directive admonishing the treatment
of adults like little children and placing a Biblical stamp of approval on
it.  But what is it about our ideas that are to be considered "anonymous
rabble-rousing"?  Is any position that is in disagreement with yours
"anonymous rabble-rousing"?  We think it is simply an indication of how
intellectually immature and blind you must be to consider legitimate
criticism as "anonymous rabble-rousing."  No one - not you, not us - has a
corner on the truth; and the worst possible way to discover truth is to
censor opposing opinions and ideas.  As a teacher, how can you honestly say
you are for education when you are likewise apparently against allowing any
other views but your own to be heard?  No, legitimate ideas and criticisms
are not "anonymous rabble-rousing;" character assassination, on the other
hand, is.
     You write, "For all of his pretence [sic] of godliness, StudentV's cloak
of anonymity is his biggest betraying characteristic.  A true man of honor
would gladly sign his name to his beliefs (a la Martin Luther)."
     The reason we are anonymous is because we do not want these views to be
seen as nothing more than the views of a couple of "lone crusaders," because
they just simply are not.  The views we express are those held by hundreds of
current students and thousands of alumni.  The views we express are held by
many of your own students no doubt.  If you want to know who we are, look
around you the next time you are on campus.  Look at some old yearbooks.
 Then you will know who The Student Voice is.
     And as for your assertion that if a man was a man of honor he would
gladly place his name to his views, perhaps you might want to read some early
American history, say, the years surrounding the infancy of this country.  We
hope you would not refer to men like John Adams, James Madison, Alexander
Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson (to name a few) who published various views and
opinions under anonymous pseudonyms as dishonorable.  For instance, much of
the Federalist Papers - some of the most important articles to America's
system of government - were published anonymously.  These are the men who
risked their lives, their fortunes and their families so that you and I could
have the right to say what we want to say.  Now, we certainly don't claim to
be anywhere close to being on par with these great men, nor do we believe
that our cause is quite as important, but we feel that if anonymity was ok
for them, it is likewise ok for us.
     You write, "(He would also follow the Biblical pattern for correction of
a brother, which this person obviously has not.)"
     You are actually right on this point - we have NOT followed the Biblical
pattern for correction of a brother.  Why?  Two reasons.  First, because we
do not have a problem with a "brother."  There are no particular people we
have problems with; rather, it is a philosophy and a way of thinking that we
would like to see changed.  Our problem is with a "system," not a "brother."
     Second, you might want to study this New Testament passage of Scripture.
 Paul is speaking to a specific church, and he is giving instructions for the
procedure CHURCHES are to follow.  So, if we were to follow your advice,
which church would we take the matter to if the "brother" were unwilling to
reconcile?  My church?  lupos's church?  Your church?  The Campus Church?
 No, we have not followed this pattern because it is absolutely not
applicable to our situation.
     Third, if you are going to be consistent, why don't you insist that PCC
follow this "Biblical pattern for correction of a brother?"  How does the
demerit system fit into what you perceive to be the correct pattern of
reconciliation?  When was the last time this procedure was conducted at PCC?
To even suggest that we are somehow in error for not following this pattern
while you work at PCC is so outrageously hypocritical of you that it is no
doubt so obvious to everyone who is reading this right now, that we will not
even insult their intelligence by explaining it.
     You write, "One should legitimately question the motives of an anonymous
individual publishing a newsletter replete with half-truths and outright
falsities."
     This is the FOURTH assertion that we are liars, and it will be dealt
with in the Legal Ramifications section below.  As for the motives (and we
apologize to those of you who have heard this over and over again), our
motives are completely irrelevant to the issues we discuss.  Our motive is to
make PCC a better place by making public what is normally a secret dialogue
among students, and by seeing the administration begin treating its students
with the respect they deserve.
     But assuming our motives were as evil as could be, the issues remain the
same.  They don't somehow ebb and flow on the sea of legitimacy by force of
our motives.  This is really quite ridiculous to constantly pound our
motives, but we realize that this is likely the only thing you feel you can
adequately address.  Fine.  Go ahead and criticize our motives all you want,
and encourage others to do the same.  It really makes no difference to us.
 We remind you, however, that the issues are still pending, and they remain
unchanged.
     You write, "I do know that he has received many emails [sic] in praise
of PCC and its work.  Apparently those get lost in his inbox."
     Yes, we have received many e-mails in praise of PCC and its work, but
no, they have not been "lost in [our] inbox."  Virtually every single message
we have received in opposition to our views have been publicly displayed.  In
fact, a much higher percentage of opposing messages we receive are posted
publicly than the percentage of those messages in support of our views.
 Besides, how do you know what our volume of messages is?  The fact of the
matter is that yes, we receive "many" messages in support of PCC's
philosophy.  However, we receive vastly more messages in support of our
position than we do from any other.  That is a fact.
     You write, "His lies cause me to doubt anything he says."
     This is the FIFTH assertion you make indicating that we are liars.  This
will be dealt with in the Legal Ramifications section below.
     You write, "CAN YOU GET RID OF HIS WWW PAGE?  CAN YOU REMOVE HIS LINK TO
THIS PAGE FROM IT?
Unfortunately, the answer to both questions is no."
     As far as removing the link on our page to your page, all you have to do
is ask.  Just for the record, neither you, nor anyone else has ever asked
that your link be removed from our page.  In fact, several people have
suggested that we put it on.  That is how we originally found out about your
page.  Far from the assertion that we were mooching off your page to get
names is the fact that we were actually trying to help you out.  We have no
vendetta against you, we don't even know you.  Someone told us about your
page so we put the link there in order for you to have more visitors.  And
this is the thanks we get. . . .
     As for removing our page, are we to assume from this that you wish our
page could be removed simply because you disagree with its content?  And if
this is the case, are we to also assume that you wish EVERY page that
contains information to your disliking removed?  We will give you the benefit
of the doubt and assume this is not what you want, but this still leaves the
question open as to why you want our page removed.  If, on the other hand,
you should not be getting the benefit of the doubt, we are relieved that you
cannot remove every page to your disliking, because this would certainly
result in a dry and boring Internet.
     You write, "BUT WHAT HE SAYS MAKES ME MAD!	
That's what he desires."
     Again, how you have become privy to our "desires" is beyond us.  We
don't desire to make anyone "mad."  We, again, are trying to provide a forum
for discussion of the issues.  It is strange to us that those in opposition
to our views are often using descriptions such as "mad," "hatred,"
"bitterness" and "anger."  We have none of these characteristics.  We find
what you have written offensive, yes, but we are not "mad" about it.  We
understand that people will disagree with our views, but we do not see any
reason to get "mad."  Perhaps you and those who bring up these descriptions
ought to look in the mirror and see if that is where the "hate" and "anger"
resides.  We harbor none of these sentiments.
     You write, "It should be of no surprise to anyone that PCC has
"enemies."  Anyone who appeals to the lowest common denominator will
certainly find ample fodder for publication."
     Not to belabor the point, but we are not "enemies."  We want to see a
better, more reasonable PCC.  How does this and differences of opinion
constitute one being an "enemy"?
     So, we are the "lowest common denominator"?  Is that what you are
saying?  Perhaps the reason that we, or whoever is the "lowest common
denominator" can find ample fodder for publication is because THERE IS ample
fodder for publication.  Maybe that is the whole point of The Voice.  Maybe
if there wasn't "ample fodder" there wouldn't be a "StudentV."  You would be
happy, we would be happy, and most importantly, the students would be happy.
 We want to see the "fodder" become a little less "ample."
     You write, "the last "edition" of his "newsletter" was full of outright
lies about policies and misstatements about past events."
     This is the SIXTH assertion you have made calling us liars.  Please
refer to the Legal Ramifications section below.

LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS.

     Mr. Pittarese, you have made a statement to many people that StudentV is
a liar without having ever pointed to one single instance of where this is
true.  I have pointed this out to you.  In the State of Florida this is
called DEFAMATION, and one who has been defamed has recourse to file suit
against the one who has defamed him.  At this point in time, I do not intend
to file suit because I think after reading this letter, you will realize your
error.  But I want you to know that I have every right and justification to
do so, and the statute of limitations allows the cause to run for one year.  
     Now, what I think ought to be done is for you to (1) explain to us what
it is that we are so egregiously in error about, (2) remove the portions of
the page that refer to us as liars, AND (3) send an apology to every one of
the people on your list.
     We do not mind disagreement or opposition.  We do mind being portrayed
as liars.  We do mind being defamed in front of the world.
     What about the fact that these statements are your opinion, which is
protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution?  The Constitution does
protect opinion, but when you use factual instances (i.e., that we lie in our
newsletter) to back up your opinion, the Constitutional protection is lost.
     What about the fact that we are anonymous?  We are not anonymous to
everyone.  There are quite a few people who know our identities, and when you
refer to StudentV as a liar, many people know who you are referring to.
     Bottom line: this shouldn't be matter for the Florida judicial system.
 Don't make it one.

Sincerely,

THE STUDENT VOICE
By Leibniz
                                                                             
************************************************************

          2.     "More Musings From lupos"
                       - lupos

Rolling along...more musings by Lupos.

As I perused the third issue of The Student Voice, I was struck by a few
things.  Leibniz received many responses to the essay on the Discipline
Comittee, and good points were made; however, I thought the underlying
mistrust of the student was apparent from those supporting the system. 
One respondent thought giving the student forewarning of his alleged
infractions would simply give them time to fabricate a better story.  That
is a terrible attitude.  Every PCC student is a professing Christian, and it
should be absolutely ASSUMED that they are honest.  Now, of course, there
will be liars, but that simply must be left for God to deal with.  We can't
foster a system of mistrust.  Many times when I had valid answers as to
why I didn't deserve the demerits, they accepted that, but made me to feel
as though I was lying.  The whole situation is no way for
Christians to deal with each other.  A college student shouldn't be made
to continually answer to nameless accusations, constantly put on the
defensive for, what in the most part amounts to pettiness.  Shades open?
Who cares!  Walked on the grass?  What's it for?  the Bible admonishes us
to not provoke our children to anger - don't exasperate them as PCC does
with those placed under it.

As The Student Voice grows, it is taking shape.  Good comments were made 
on making sure our responses were "in the right spirit" (a favorite cliche of
PCC), 
and that is valid.  We want to make The Voice more accessible to people of
any
opinion, but do keep in mind these are in many cases heated topics.  "Be
angry, but sin not."  Unfortunately, the methodology of PCC is to avoid all
internal discussion and to defer to the administration.  While a student,
that was my only option or I would ultimately be removed from school.  Why
not allow a dissenting viewpoint?  They want harmony and good attitudes, but
wouldn't it be easier to provide an environment where there wasn't much to
complain about.  No, of course not perfect; but really, the constant
control, the "men students may meet their dates at the Dale Horton no
sooner than a 1/2 hour before the service. . . ."  It's just embarrassing to
be
treated like that.  We are men, not children.

Rules help control the externals, but they are completely ineffective in
showing the heart, which is what God is concerned with.  Does PCC think its
policies create a good image of the way God disciplines and forgives? 
Dr. Mullenix stated in a Bible class that he was out of school ten years
before he grasped the unconditional love our Heavenly Father has for us,
and that He wasn't "out to get him" or clobber him when he messed up. 
No wonder he had that view if he attended a school like this, which
blindly doles out punishment after punishment for the smallest thing.

I hope this endeavor becomes something that the administration can look at
and realize the hardship and burden they are placing on students who want
to simply live life, enjoy friends, learn about God and gain a good
education.  They may not be aware of how miserable a floor leader can make
life for a student, or what it's like to have no place to go where you can
simply be yourself.  They haven't allowed for the students to speak up, 
so it must be done by those who are aware of what it's like - hence, the 
alumni.  My question to faculty, staff and administration is: Are you able
to change?  If you are presented with sin or maybe simply an unnecessary 
annoyance that you've put in the lives of those under you, are you 
willing to say "I'm wrong -no problem - let's do it differently now."  
Ask yourself if this is the way you see Jesus treating his pupils. 
Now, obviously this is an odd source for you to receive correction from, 
and pride would make it quite hard to take, but with the 
censored environment you have, what other method is there?

Several people responded that they were praying for us and that is truly
invaluable.  As we get the feel for this newsletter it is apparent that
good change will only come through the Holy Spirit, whether it be in
individuals or the PCC system.  We ought not neglect this, regardless of
our feelings on the issues presented.

UnderTheMercy,

Lupos

##########################################################

          PAST WEEK'S COMMENTS FROM OUR READERS

>>> Comment from J---, who commented last week.

I know my comments are mostly an aside from the larger point of this essay,
but I thought I'd throw them in anyway.

>     For instance, consider this illustrative syllogism: mistrust is
>generally evidenced by extreme control; PCC exercises extreme control over
>its students; therefore, there is a high degree of probability that PCC
>doesn't trust its students.

This is variable by staff/faculty member.  Policy control is in the hands of
the
very few at PCC.  The control you refer to *is* rather tight, but it is set
up that
way by a small number of people.  Therefore, the mistrust isn't by PCC staff
corporately.  Some staff/faculty members who happen to fully agree with
administrative policies could be said to mistrust the student body; these are
the staff members who use any available excuse to write up a student in
church or elsewhere.  From both a student and now staff perspective, I
have seen PCC staff/faculty figuratively run right over a student for doing
basically nothing of consequence; it's a disgusting slap in the face of a
student's maturity and privacy to get written up for "being disruptive in
church".  Conversely, there are *many* staff/faculty members who do not go
around looking for things to trouble a college student with.  Most of us have
our own lives and will not write up a student unless an offense is committed
that is blatant and serious.  FWIW, I have never written up a student, and
would not do so unless I basically was unable to turn my head for whatever
reason.

The point I'm making is this: some staff members take the policies that are
established by the few, and then push those policies on the students as an
abuse of power.  Not only are those staffers mistrustful of students, they
generally have rather inflated opinions about themselves and consequent
disdain for the student.  While no one would ever admit to this personally,
I can see by the actions and attitudes of many staff people that they are
not all that interested in the students, but rather in themselves and their
own
advancement in the ministry.  This despite the fact that their very ministry
is to the students!  It's an irony I find quite odd and singularly most
frustrating about this ministry.  It's not a pervasive thing - IOW, it's not
as if *most* staff people are this way, BUT there's plenty of this kind of
thing going around.

>     PCC's minor premise would be that it doesn't exercise "extreme control"
>over its students; therefore, based on the facts of this syllogism, there
>would be a very low probability that PCC mistrusts its students.  The
Student
>Voice, on the other hand, provides the alternative premise, that PCC DOES
>exercise "Extreme control," and so the conclusion changes.

I don't think anyone, staff or student, would question that PCC maintains a
tight fist of control over the student body.  If a staff person denies this,
check in their pocket/purse for a worn demerit pad and nearly empty ink
barrel in their pen.

>>> RESPONSE

We think you make a very good point, J.  The policies of the top are often
not representative of those further down the hierarchy.  However, this is
something that most students do not realize.  It is just assumed that once
you put on the cloak of "administration," you are in 100% agreement.  We
would like to hear from some teachers, though.  It seems that most of them
simply don't want to read The Voice, notwithstanding the fact that it is what
the students are thinking.  The Voice.

************************************************************

>>> Comment from S---.

I read through a lot of it, but I think my bottom line is this.  In America,
a private entity/business can do whatever they want to as long as it is
within the bounds of the law.  Setting rules, as ridiculous as they may be,
is certainly within the bounds of the law.

As a private employer, I will make whatever rules I want to for my business.
 I don't care how riduculous they are - they're mine and they're there b/c I
want them to be.  If one of the rules is that I don't want an employee
questioning the rules, then so be it. You don't have any first amendment
rights in my office.

If PCC wants to have their rules, then they have the perfect right to.  If
they don't want you questioning the rules, then YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHT TO.
 It may not be Chrisitan, but that's a different issue - and an issue I'll
save for another day.

>>> RESPONSE

Well, that is precisely the whole point of our little discussion here - not
what is legal but what is Christian.  If PCC doesn't want the students
questioning the rules, then we just wish that they could at least explain
why.  Remember, we are not children. . . .  The Voice.

**********************************************************************

>>> Comment from C---.

The. . . point he made [Dr. Horton's address to the Seniors on 
Wednesday] that I want to comment on was: "If it's your 
problem, it's no one else's problem."  And "Don't take up the offenses 
of others, and don't come to their defense either."  He went on to say 
that we should do the same while we're still students here at PCC, but 
he never told us why we should support such a principle.  He just kept 
repeating, "Just don't do it. Don't -- That's all there is too it."

With all due respect, Dr. Horton, may I ask where your scriptural 
support for this statement is?  Aren't you forgetting that our Lord 
Jesus Christ, on more than one occasion, came to the defense of others?  
Didn't He take up the defense of the entire human race -- past, present, 
and future, when he took the sin of all mankind upon Himself?  And what 
about the other biblical references which contradict your viewpoint:  "A 
3-fold cord is not quickly broken";  and "Where two or three are 
gathered in My Name, there I am in the midst of them."

Again, with all due repect, Dr. Horton, until you can give us any 
scriptural support for your "time-tested statements", I will continue to 
stand with my brother or sister in Christ when they have been wrongfully 
accused or mistreated, and to come to their defense whenever I can.

>>> RESPONSE

Amen. The Voice.

############################################################

>>> Any comments or questions may be directed to studentv@aol.com

############################################################

     THE STUDENT VOICE - PCC's alternative newsletter

############################################################