############################################################
          The Student Voice     Issue 2, No. 1     11.01.1996
############################################################

          QUOTES OF THE WEEK  

No man can justly censure or condemn another, because indeed 
no man truly knows another.
          - Sir Thomas Browne

O Lord, how great are thy works!
and thy thoughts are very deep.
          - The Bible, from the Book of Psalms 

Injustice, poverty, slavery, ignorance - these may be
cured by reform or revolution.  But men do not live
only by fighting evils.  They live by positive goals,
individual and collective, a vast variety of them,
seldom predictable, at times incompatible.
          - Sir Isaiah Berlin

Beginning reform is beginning revolution.
          - Duke of Wellington

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

          TABLE OF CONTENTS

     I.   Voice Announcements

     II.   "Have you heard the one about. . . ?" - A visitor's experience

     III.   Food for Thought

     IV.   Essays
               A.   "Beyond Tangential Tergiversation"  - Leibniz
               B.   A brief note regarding the Tony Pittarese controversy  -
Leibniz

     V.   Your Comments

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

          I.   VOICE ANNOUNCEMENTS

>>>  Below is a list of issues put out by The Student Voice to date.  If you
would like one, or some of them, please indicate which ones you want and we
will get them to you as quickly as we can:

          The Student Voice Introductory Letter
          Issue 1, No's. 1 - 4 

>>>  The current Reader statistics are as follows:  133 

>>>  We have revised the goal of 100 by Thanksgiving to 200.  Please help us
to reach this goal.

>>> The Student Voice was in the process of changing software on Saturday,
and as a result, all mail that was sent on Saturday was lost.  We are
requesting that those who sent us mail on Saturday re-send it.  Thank you.

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

          II.     HAVE YOU HEARD THE ONE ABOUT. . . ? 

>>> The individual who sent this to us is a senior at a Virginia university.
 He is majoring in Biology and will be attending medical school after
graduation. - eds.

>>> A Visitor's First Experience

I am not a PCC student, but during my spring break this past year,
I decided to visit one of my friends at PCC for a few days.  (Needless to
say, I was asked by many a student why I would choose to spend valuable
vacation time in the PCC environment. However, I think this story is
reason enough.)  One day my friend needed to do some studying in the
library before classes, so I went along with him.  While my friend was
dressed in the standard PCC attire, I wore simply jeans and an (untucked)
flannel shirt.  We sat down at a table on the second floor, and he studied
while I perused a science magazine.  After a short while I was interrupted
by a young woman (a student I presume) who asked, "Um, excuse me, are you
a student here?"  When I told her that I was not, she proceeded to tell me
how I had to fill out some type of paperwork or visitor's card somewhere.
Apparently, someone at the front desk had reported that an individual in a
flannel shirt and jeans had entered the building and had made his way to
the second floor.  I was thoroughly confused as to what exactly I was
supposed to do, but my friend had had some experience with this sort of
thing and directed me to where I needed to go.  We went to some type of
visitor's or information booth where I was asked to fill out a card that
asked for my name, address, the nature of my visit and who I was with.  I
put down my name and why I was there and returned the card.  The young man
behind the booth (another student, I presume) asked me to include my
address.  I couldn't think of any reason why they needed my address so I
asked him what it would be used for.  He responded with something like,
"Oh, it's just so that we...it's for purposes that...it's for
purposes...it just helps us out."  Needless to say, I was not satisfied
with his answer and was tempted to ask him to explain himself more
clearly.  However, I decided it was not worth it and reluctantly filled
out the rest of the card.

	My friend and I were both amused at how this episode epitomized
the PCC environment:  everyone following the rules, but few, if any,
knowing exactly why they are there.               

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

          III.     FOOD FOR THOUGHT

>>> "A Bad Thinking Habit"  - Anonymous 

It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then to
loosen up. Inevitably though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more
than just a social thinker.
 
I began to think alone - "to relax," I told myself - but I knew it wasn't
true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was
thinking all the time.
 
I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix,
but I couldn't stop myself.
 
I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and Kafka. I
would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly
we are doing here?"
 
Things weren't going so great at home either. One evening I had turned off
the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at
her mother's.
 
I soon had a reputation as a heavy thinker. One day the boss called me in. He
said, "Skippy, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking has
become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to
find another job." This gave me a lot to think about.
 
I came home early after my conversation with the boss. "Honey," I confessed,
"I've been thinking..."

"I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!"

"But Honey, surely it's not that serious."

"It is serious," she said, lower lip aquiver. "You think as much as college
professors, and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on
thinking we won't have any money!"

"That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently, and she began to cry.  I'd
had enough. "I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door.

I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche, with a PBS station
on the radio. I roared into the parking lot and ran up to the big glass
doors...they didn't open. The library was closed.

To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that night.

As I sank to the ground clawing at the unfeeling glass, whimpering for
Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye. "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your
life?" it asked. You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard
Thinker's Anonymous poster.

Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never miss a TA
meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was
"Porky's." Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the
last meeting.

I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just
seemed...easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking.
          
#############################################################

          III.     ESSAYS

>>>  "Beyond Tangential Tergiversation"
            - By Leibniz

Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle?  who shall dwell in thy holy hill?
He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and SPEAKETH THE TRUTH
IN HIS HEART.
Psalm 15:1,2

Withhold not thou thy tender mercies from me, O Lord: 
let thy lovingkindness AND THY TRUTH continually preserve me.
Psalm 40:11

Behold, thou desirest TRUTH in the inward parts:
and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to KNOW WISDOM.
Psalm 51:6

The lip of TRUTH shall be established for ever:
but a lying tongue is but for a moment.
Proverbs 12:19

Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
That I might make thee know the certainty of the WORDS OF TRUTH; that thou
mightest ANSWER THE WORDS OF TRUTH to them that send unto thee?
Proverbs 22:20,21

This witness is true.  Wherefore REBUKE THEM SHARPLY, that they may be sound
in the faith;
Titus 1:13

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are TRUE, whatsoever things are HONEST,
whatsoever things are JUST, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are
lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be ANY VIRTUE, and if
there be ANY PRAISE, THINK ON THESE THINGS.
Philippians 4:8

The essence of the life and mission of Jesus Christ was to provide redemption
and salvation for the whole of mankind and to demonstrate truth in the
process.  Certainly, one lifetime, even for the Son of God, was inadequate to
deal with all of the processes by which mankind can discover the truth of
every, or any, debatable issue which we deem important.  But when we say, as
a collective body, although with perhaps a tendency towards divisions in
minor philosophies, "Be Christ-like," or we indicate that it is our desire to
be "Christ-like," what is it that we are saying?  What does being
"Christ-like" mean?

Many of those who disagree with us would say that at the very least it means
to never criticize a Christian institution, i.e., PCC.  Some would say that
we should deviate from our "revolutionary" tactics.  And yet others would
say, no, keep it up, StudentV, what you have to say NEEDS to be said, as if
there is some kind of institutional craving for dimensional growth.  

Christ was about truth; no one would deny this.  (Hence, the major premise.)
 One of the major questions I ask myself everyday and before writing anything
for The Student Voice is "What am I striving for?"  What are the ends to
which I wish to apply these controversial means?"  Sure, I am not exempt from
human passions and prejudices that abound within the realm of human
existence, but I can honestly say that my primary goal is to demonstrate that
less paternalism is better than more.  This I feel is the "true" way a
college student should be treated.  My goal is to demonstrate that some
freedom instead of virtually none is the "true" way a college student should
be permitted to grow and function.  What is best?  That is the motive of The
Voice.  What would Christ think?  That is where we need to focus.

The basic point is that all of us believe that to be "Christ-like" is, at the
very least, to strive to be TRUE. True to what we believe to be the truth.
 That is the irony about The Voice.  Our whole mission is to be (true) what
we are trying to discover (truth).  That's what it means to be "Christ-like"
- to an extent. . . .  Obviously, there is a greater body of Christ-likeness
for which we must strive, but certainly we would hope that no one would
disagree with another premise that at least part of this whole is a divisible
part labeled "truth."

As a preliminary, we ought to distinguish between two separate definitions of
"truth."  The first definition of "truth" could be characterized as "big-T
truth," or "Truth."  It is the ultimate message that God sent to us via the
person of Jesus Christ through the message of the gospel - i.e., salvation.
 The second definition can be characterized as "small-t truth," or "truth."
 This deals with what is true, accurate and right in science, philosophy,
social interactions, etc.  This can, and should, include whether PCC's
characterization of a "Christian" education and a "Christian" environment is
TRULY "Christian."

"I am as true as truth's simplicity, 
And simpler than the infancy of truth."
- Shakespeare

But yet there are those who want to shy away from trying to discover the
truth about PCC's treatment of its students, and they want to run away from
the question, "Is this truly the way Christ would want it to be done."  They
claim that this is foolishness, bitterness, hatred and anger.  They say that
these are questions that should be addressed within the sterile confines of
some administrator's office, as if this will ever result in any real change,
needed or otherwise.  Or there is the motive argument - you need to get off
the terrible motive of destroying what God has built up, as if we could
destroy it if we wanted to!  As if we were more powerful than God!  Oh, what
logic!

It boggles our mind that so many people, mostly those in staff and faculty
positions at PCC, are unwilling to engage in a debate over what is true.  It
boggles our mind that while so many students have the concerns which we
express here in The Voice, many in the administration simply say that we
(you) are wrong and ask not even be part of the discussion.  Why?  Is there a
fear of the truth?  Should the truth be discovered in another way?  We are
always open to better methods, certainly, but to do it on PCC's terms defeats
the whole purpose of seeing true reform.  Instead, those who disagree with us
want to focus on the tangential issues - motives, methods, names and
attitudes.  It's so stale, and it's so irrelevant. . . .

What if Christ adopted the same ideology and method as many of the PCC
faculty and staff?  What if, when the public, or the apostles or even the
Pharisees came up to Christ with a question about what Christ claimed to be
"true" He simply said, "No, you're wrong.  I don't want to be a part of your
discussion"?

Consider the somewhat analogous situation of Nicodemus and his approach to
Christ in John 3.  No, he was not anonymous, but he did attempt to hide his
identity for many of the same reasons we do.  He would have been chastised
for seeking Truth by means that went contrary to the established "religious
system."  Nicodemus had a concern regarding Christ's philosophy of salvation.
 Likewise, although at a lesser importance decibel, the students have a
legitimate concern regarding the philosophy of PCC's view of "Christianity"
as a social structure on campus.

We recognize that there are differences between our situation and that of
Nicodemus (which is why it is an "analogy").  First, we ask our questions by
disseminating information to like-minded people, while Nicodemus went
directly to the source.  However, we do not have the luxury of going directly
to the source, or when we do, the answers are inadequate, if addressed at
all.  Second, Nicodemus was seeking Truth; we are seeking truth.

Be that as it may, consider what the colloquy may have sounded like had
Christ reacted the same way many of the PCC faculty and staff have and no
doubt will continue to do:

NICODEMUS: Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher sent from God. . . . We
want to know salvation, but to be "born again" makes little sense unless you
explain it to us.
CHRIST: Never mind what it means to be "born again," Nicodemus.  Why are you
coming to me in this fashion?  Why are you not willing to own up to your
ideas and questions?  If you were a man of honor, you would not be afraid to
come to me during the day.
NICODEMUS: Well, the reason I am coming to you at night is because the
religious authorities condemn any search for the Truth outside of the avenues
they've created.  They won't let me or anyone else question them.
CHRIST: That's not an adequate answer.  I don't think your question is
legitimate unless you reveal your identity by coming to me in the open.
NICODEMUS: But how I come to you is irrelevant to the Truth you say you
possess.
CHRIST: I don't care.  Not only that, you are completely wrong in your
opinions, and your statements are factually incorrect.
NICODEMUS: What do you mean?  Please give me an example.
CHRIST: I refuse to answer that.  You need to change your attitude.
NICODEMUS: But that doesn't help me to ascertain the Truth if you don't point
out my error.
CHRIST: Well, you're wrong.  And don't come to me anymore with your
questions. . . .

Or then there is the PCC response to Christ's actions in the temple:

PCC: What are you doing?  Don't you know your supposed to use "love" and
kindness to those you disagree with?
CHRIST: These people have made my house a den of thieves.
PCC: But this is God's house, and you have no right to speak against this
Christian institution.
CHRIST: I refuse to permit people to twist the meaning of what "Christian" is
all about.
PCC: You need to repent of your rebellious attitude, young man.  Throwing
down tables is no way for a nice, clean-cut person to act in proper and
Christian society.
CHRIST: Who are you to say what is a "proper and a Christian society"?
PCC: Well. . . the handbook says. . . I mean. . . Dr. Horton said. . . .
CHRIST: I don't care what your handbook says or what Dr. Horton says, I care
about what God says in His Word.
PCC: Well, you need to check your motives, and stop trying to start a
revolution.
PCC: And we'll say a prayer for you. . .

Well, we think the point is obvious.  Christ wasn't afraid to address the
truth in any position He held, and He wasn't afraid, nor did He think it
improper, to use unconventional methods.  Of course, He was God.  But the
point is that Christ never turned down a question, never felt himself above
the opinions of His questioners and never substituted prayer for a straight
answer.  Likewise, the administration must understand that The Student Voice
is simply portraying and representing what is in the mind of many students.
 No, we don't represent everybody, and we don't claim to, but based on the
percentage of responses we get, and based on having lived there for four
years, we think we are in a fairly safe position to say that we represent the
students.

Again, just so there is no confusion, we ARE NOT equating ourselves as
somehow being on par with Christ.  This would be absurd.  But think about it:
why would PCC's reaction be any different?  While they would never come right
out and say it, many are of the position that something negative directed at
PCC is a negative towards God.  This just simply is not true.  PCC is a good
institution, but it does not have a corner on the truth market.  The truth,
i.e., what would Christ want, is what we should be focusing on.  Instead,
many individuals want to focus entirely on tangential matters - things with
no relevance other than to provide a cover from addressing some real
problems.

So far, The Voice has pointed out how to Biblically analyze any use of
authority, and how PCC deviates from it somewhat.  How many responses have we
gotten about that?  One.  We have also dealt with what we, and many others
perceive to be a problem with the discipline committee procedure, and
solutions to alleviate these problems.  How many people addressed that?  Less
than five.  We have addressed a faculty member who published scurrilous
attacks against The Voice.  How many people addressed the substantive issues?
 Less than five.

Now, we ought to clarify that there have been numerous letters of support,
and many of them have offered additional suggestions and concerns.  So, what
does this tell us?  This says to us that there are not many people who are
willing to defend the SUBSTANTIVE issues we have presented.  Instead, they
want to focus on what's tangential.

Frankly, we are getting tired of it.  Get off it already!  Get off the
motives, the attitude and the anonymity and either tell us why the discipline
committee is good the way it is now, OR CHANGE IT!  Stop being so inflexible
and Quaker-like.  Stop looking at yourself in the mirror at your nicely
pressed khakis and polo shirts, and try to make PCC a better place.  You may
not like the avenue by which this may end up taking place, but as of yet, no
one has offered any real alternatives.

One of the comments suggested that we do something better with our spare
time.  Like what?  Like sitting in the Commons talking about collegians?  Or
maybe going to a soccer game?  Perhaps he meant we should go to east courts
and play an important game of basketball?  Or maybe he just meant we should
spend more time at the beach or Cordova Mall. . . .  No, we think spending
our spare time trying to change the course of a major Christian institution
is a little more important than checking up on the weekend's sports scores.
 Somehow, this seems more relevant. 
Somehow, this seems better than wallowing in self-love and tangential
tergiversation.

"The discipline of colleges and universities is in general
contrived, not for the benefit of the students, but for the
interest, or more properly speaking, for the ease of the masters."
- Adam Smith from WEALTH OF NATIONS

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

       B.   A brief note regarding the Tony Pittarese controversy
               - By Leibniz

As you can probably understand or perhaps know first-hand, the controversy
surrounding the Tony Pittarese page caused quite a stir among many of our
readers and those elsewhere.  As a result of our Response, another letter was
again sent out by Mr. Pittarese accusing us of breaking the law - i.e., by
violating Mr. Pittarese's copyrights in the page, despite the fact that we
had already explained how this just simply wasn't correct.

Well, Mr. Pittarese's letter essentially said that he would not respond to
The Voice's answer and that we were wrong in our view of the alleged
copyright infringement.  We then reiterated our position - that it was not a
copyright violation - by sending a lengthy letter to Mr. Pittarese explaining
in great detail how the copyright statutes work and how he had incorrectly
interpreted them again. . . badly.

We received another letter from him stating that obviously our
interpretations of copyright law were different (although I was not giving MY
interpretation of the law, rather, I was giving Congress' and the U.S.
Supreme Court's interpretation).  So, there still remains unretracted
defamatory statements and unsubstantiated charges of law breaking which we
have chosen simply not to address directly here in The Voice.  Why?  Well,
because we don't want to waste time explaining things that everyone but a few
individuals can understand and which would constitute the perfect example of
us doing exactly what we don't want done - focusing on tangential issues.

However, we do want to make it clear that we do take these charges seriously.
 The Voice strives to maintain accuracy and honesty, and when there are
unsubstantiated charges to the contrary, we feel we owe a duty to you, the
reader, to refute these charges.  As someone wrote to us this past week, when
we are trying to address morality, in a sense, honesty is a high virtue.  And
when individuals impugn our honesty or integrity, we take it very seriously
and consider it our responsibility to correct the charges.  Since we already
did this in an adequate manner last week, we will not do so again this week.

However, we will make Tony's second letter, our second Response, and Tony's
third letter available to anyone who would like to read them.  We think you
will find them interesting and of course invite your comments on them.
 Please just e-mail us and ask for these letters specifically. 

############################################################
 
          V.     YOUR COMMENTS

>>> We would like to first make a few preliminary remarks.  This past week we
have received an enormous amount of mail, and so it will be impossible, or at
least impracticable, to post all of them, although most of them have been
excellent.  We have also received some comments voicing the concern that we
are not fair with the way we present the Comments by aggressively responding
to those which we disagree with while not responding to the ones we agree
with.

We do feel that this is a valid point, and although we will still respond to
some of them, for every disagreement we respond to, we will post another
disagreement in its entirety WITHOUT responding, although we may have
privately.  We will allow you to then interpret them and comment on them as
you see fit.

We would like to know what you think of this approach. - The Voice

*********************************************************************
>>> COMMENT from C-- regarding a statement made by Dr. Mutsch in chapel:

I want to make a comment about a statement Dr. Mutsch made in his chapel 
message on Monday. [may have been a couple of weeks ago by now - eds.]

He said, "You'll know you're in the center of God's Will when you have a 
heart of gratitude."

Did Mutsch ever adequately back up his statement with scripture?  He 
used I Thess 5:18--"In everything give thanks: for this is the will of 
God..."

God's Word doesn't contradict itself, and we should have already 
accepted this basic tenet of our faith (though some radicals claim 
otherwise).  But when Mutsch made that statement, I couldn't help but be 
instantly reminded of several examples of godly individuals mentioned in 
the Bible who had NOTHING like a heart of gratitude during adversity, 
yet they NEVER wandered from the center of God's Will.

Don't think me a heretic and shut me off when you read what I have to 
say next--what I'm about to say is entirely valid.  Does it sound as 
though Jesus (who, without a doubt, was ALWAYS in the center of God's 
will) had a heart of gratitude when he prayed in the garden, "Father, if 
thou be willing, remove this cup from me..."?  Yet still He prayed, "Not 
my will, but thine, be done." (Luke 22:42)

I do agree with Mutsch that it's ignorant to make the assumption that 
when we are faced with a decision, we shouldn't bother praying about it 
if you know you're in the center of God's Will because God is going to 
be in it no matter which choice you make.  That's contrary to scripture 
("whatsoever is not of faith is sin").  But I do not subscribe to the 
belief that I will always have a heart of gratitude while in the center 
of God's Will.  I'm only made of flesh, after all.  Sure, I TRY to give 
thanks in every situation, but I'm still a sinner, too, and I know that 
I'm not always going to be happy with adversity and other various and 
sundry times of testing.

I do subscribe, however, to the Apostle Paul's point-of-view when he 
wrote, "...for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be 
content." (Phil 4:11)

Mutsch's statement is just another one of those ludicrous administrative 
attempts to convince us that we should be happy here no matter what.  I 
do feel that I am in the center of God's Will here, but I do not always 
have a "heart of gratitude."  And while I may not be entirely thankful 
for PCC's dominating presence in my life, I have learned, like Paul, to 
be content in whatever state I'm in--whether it be in my home state, or, 
if you'll forgive the sarcasm, in a communist state.

>>> RESPONSE

Well, you raise an interesting point.  Since we were not there, we cannot
adequately or fairly address the points made either way.  We would say that
his statement could be BOTH true and false.  (Yes, we are riding the fence
big time on this one!)  To say that you will know that you are in God's will
when you have a heart of gratitude is true to the extent that God's will IS,
obviously, for us to have a heart of gratitude - "Give thanks in all things."
 

However, we would certainly agree with you that just because you don't have a
"heart of gratitude" does not automatically take you out of the "Will of God"
necesarilly.  But we will concede that much of this depends on what is the
"will of God"?  What is "gratitude"?  Unfortunately or not, semantics play a
big role in how we define concepts and values, and statements like the one
Dr. Mutsch made will depend on the context within which he meant it to be
understood.  So, we agree with both you and Dr. Mutsch in that we cannot make
a judgment without hearing "the rest of the story."  Good thoughts, though. .
.. . - The Voice

************************************************************
 
>>> COMMENT from a former PCC professor, D-- regarding The Voice's handling
of the Tony Pittarese issue:

I DO NOT wish to receive ANY of this "critical" and , in my opinion,
unBiblical material.

The Bible states that we, as Christians, will be known by our LOVE.  Although
I may not see someone else's actions as love toward me, I am ALWAYS to
respond in love.

I personally support Pensacola Christian College (and Bob Jones University -
the institution you referred to when mentioning Dr. Mullenix).  They are not
perfect institutions, but they are seeking to serve the Lord in the best way
THEY know how.  YOU are not responsible for answering to the Lord for their
actions.  THEY ARE.

Also, your "threat" of legal action against Tony for "defamation" is clearly
against scriptural teaching.  Rather than ask for an apology from HIM, I
believe you have an apology to make to Tony (and all of the PCC community)
for your lack of love and spreading "discord among the brethren."

I truly pray that the Lord will convict you of your "critical spirit" and
urge you to stop THE STUDENT VOICE under its present purpose.  Though you may
not agree with everything the college does, you ought to do as Jesus did...
REJOICE AT THE PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL.

D-- (BJU '80, PCC '93)

PS - In my opinion, THE STUDENT VOICE will never be a true "voice" as long as
its originators hide behind the mask of anonimity. 


>>> COMMENT from P--, an alumnus who is writing to Tony P. regarding his web
page and The Voice's Response:

Tony,

I believe you may not comprehend the reprocussions of not responding to
this latest of Leibniz's writings!!!

If you are truly interested in "the truth" as you state below, you WILL
make a response to the statements Leibniz (I recognise that there may
be more than one person involved in the emails) makes in his(their)
response to your statements.

I have not read anything else related to this whole situation except
this set of emails from Leibniz (The StudentVoice) and this, your
response.  I think you ought to know though, you look the fool to me
when you take the position you have taken here.

Please respond!!!

Please respond responsibly and wisely!!!!!

I have been at this internet thing (since 1983) long enough to know you
are dangerously close to totally loosing your credibility!!!!  If you
want to know why, write me privately and I'll expain it to you.

NOTE: because I have not filed this document with a patent office and
because I never plan or expect to make a profit on it, it is not
copyrighted!!!!!  No matter what you think or believe. (big hint,
everyone)

To clarify:

I do not know who this Leibniz person is or anyone closely associated
with him(them), however, the arguments used against you are either 100%
accurate or close to it.  You appear to be ignorant of the copyright
laws and their purpose.  If you care to know why I am making this
statement, please email me privately and I will tell you why but I
think you might be gulping right now unless you plan on making some
$$$'s from your web pages.  If you are, I want a cut since my name
appears there.

For your information, while I was attending PCC (1981 thru 1985), I
approached Dr. Allison (I think in 1984) in regard to getting PCC
caught up with the 20th century and making the internet available to
the faculty, staff and students.  He asked me how this might be done.
I explained it to him and mentioned that it might require a
philisophical change on the part of this institution (PCC).  I
explained to him that many of the things which are now (at that time)
hidden would become public.  PCC would get broad exposure, I told him.
However, he did not fully comprehend my warnings at the time.  There
would be positives (it sounded great to him) but also negatives
associated with communicating in a public forum (the internet).  Has it
now become obvious?  You cannot ignore this thing that is happening to
you (Tony or PCC administration).  You cannot stop it nor should you.
You need to mature!

I have personally been on what we now call the internet since 1983 (we
just called it "the net" back then).  During my time on it, I have only
seen a reluctance of a very few individuals to not answer back to these
allegations Leibniz makes of you.  I have also seen a goodly number of
people have to remove themselves from the internet bacause they did not
know how to get along with the other people on the net.  If what Leibniz
printed is truely what you published on your web page(s), it demands a
response.  Be careful, I mean it!!!

If you value your credibility, make an intelligent response and answer
wisely, most of the book of Proverbs demands it and so does the basic
tenants of the Christian faith and the internet.

If you do not take the time to make a response (it may mean many
responses, BTW), you really do not belong on the internet and I
respectfully request that you remove your presence from it or at least
become non-confrontational.  You will be an embarasement to the guy who
planted the seed into Dr. Allison's head to get a presence for PCC on
the internet.

Finally, if you do not repond, please remove my name and entry from
your web pages and any mailing lists.  It will be the final nail in the
coffin for me on this foolish stance PCC takes in regard to the value
and worth of every person who has passed through it's doors.  And lest
you think I am taking the side of the StudentVoice, I am thinking more
of the married students, faculty and staff members of PCC who I saw get
a worse deal than the on-campus students (read singles) got.  That is a
whole other can of worms I don't care to open up.


In message "Alumni Page Information", 'tonypitt@gulf.net' writes:

>Within the last few days you have received a mailing from a person using the
>name "StudentV@aol.com" which contained a copy of a newsletter entitled the

       ^^^^^^^^
This is an account not a person, the person refers to himself/herself
(possibly) as Leibniz.

>"Student Voice."  Perhaps you read the newsletter.

Of course

>I will not take up your time responding to any of the content in the
>newsletter.  I believe that people with discretion who read the newsletter
>should be able to reach their own conclusion.

Yep, I for one want to see an intelligent response!

>I did want to let you know that StudentV's use of the Alumni Page was
>unauthorized.  Since this compilation is copyrighted, StudentV's
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your a newcomer to the internet, right?
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^
Stretching it very far here (I am reading between the lines).

>unauthorized use is a violation of that copyright.  He also quoted 100% of

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did you publish this in a public forum, the internet, yes, anyone can
use it no matter what you think as long as they are making no profit
(does not include reasonable fees, read some shareware to get an idea
of what is legal under the current copyright laws for fees)

>another copyrighted document, which is a further infringement.

                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
infringement of what, you made it public when you published it.

>I do not desire to take any type of "legal action" against StudentV, however

You have no legal recourse, have you consulted an attorney who is
versed in internet matters, there are a load of them on the internet
and they will give you sound advice.

>I do desire to have him stop unauthorized use of the alumni list.  I have

I did not indicate that I did not want my name given out to anyone
else.  I didn't see any way you could have prevented it.

>sent him a "cease and desist" order through America Online to attempt to
>effect this.  I am hopeful that he will comply and life can return to order
>around here.

I think you are fooling yourself, if you want order in life, get off
of the internet.  I'm am really very serous about this.

>I have decided to remove a web page formerly available at my web site
>entitled "What About StudentV?"  I believe most people now know that I am in

this means I cannot verify what Leibniz is claiming.  Leave it there
please.

>no way affiliated with StudentV.  Although I stand behind all the statements
>formerly published on that page, I don't wish to dignify StudentV's work

I don't beleive Leibniz will claim what you are referring to as "a
work".  It is a response.

>with any continued public commentary. 

Neither do I, just repond privately in email.  When you published your
"What About StudentV?" web page, you made it public.  You do not know
what you speak of (isn't that a quote from the KJV?).

>My desire is, and always has been, to seek ways of using the Internet and
>WWW for profitable communication and distribution of information.  I believe
>this powerful media has great potential value.

I often get more information from the negative reactions than from the
positive reactions in most forums.  Don't the rest of you?

It helps me know what I do not want to do or be!!!

>I just wanted you to be aware of the situation.  I suspect that StudentV may
>have some continued commentary on this event.  You are now aware of the

To be expected, you opened up the can of worms by publishing the web
page: "What About StudentV?"

P--

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

>>> Another COMMENT regarding the Tony Pittarese controversy, from C--:

As I read the most recent issue of "The Voice" I wanted to stand up and 
applaud your "Response to Tony Pittarese" article.  It seemed to me that 
Mr. Pittarese was wallowing in self-satisfaction at how cleverly he 
thought he had "covered his rear" by tacking the copyright onto the end 
of his response.

Wasn't it Lord Byron who said "a little learning 
is a dangerous thing?" (probably not -- I never can match a quotation 
with its author).  But I do know that it was C.S. Lewis who wrote that 
"the love of knowledge is a kind of madness."

>> T.P. called StudentV "annonymous rabble-rousing."  And while I'm certain
that there are those who would attempt to use THE VOICE as a platform for
venting their personal angst (as I mentioned in a previous "letter to the
editor"), I believe that every reader must admit that were this publication
in a public, vocal debate (administration forbid THAT should ever happen),
they would never see any spittle fly, jugular veins throbbing, or the
speakers in each others' face, yelling at each other like a coach/umpire
brawl in a baseball game.

The editorial voice used throughout is one of individuals who are 
extremely well-educated and are original thinkers who speak passionately 
and knowledgably about the issues discussed, yet are never arrogant or 
vociferous, are open to the opinions of others (even when they are 
contrary to their own), and are willing to admit when they have been 
wrong -- and to correct their error as well.

I know that I speak for the majority of StudentV subscribers when I say 
that I am particularly offended by T.P.'s description of what I have to 
say.  I am not a "rabble-rouser" -- I am simply an individual who 
doesn't appreciate not being treated like the adult I am -- the adult 
that modern society and even my parents recognize me to be.

>> T.P. said that THE VOICE "plays" with the truth.  I find it very difficult
to believe that anyone, after reading THE VOICE, could actually come to the
conclusion that StudentV has a flippant attitude toward the truth -- HONESTY
is what this publication is all about.  We don't handle the truth with the
same "reckless abandon" as a dog has with a chew toy, and I am offended that
anyone would accuse me of such a thing.  All one has to do is read or hear
the first-person testimonialsof the abuse of administrative authority to
realize that the "excellence in everything" purported to exist here at the
college is merely a facade, a public relations gimmick.  I find no kinship
with individuals here who choose to blindfold themselves with that old
Victorian mindset that "if I don't see it, it doesn't exist."  No, we don't
"play" with the truth around here -- we bring it into the open, we put it
under the light, we place it on a pedastal.  Personally, I value truth as
much as I do my next breath because to breathe means life, and truth means
liberty (John 8:32).

>> T.P. said: "A true man of honor would gladly sign his name to his beliefs
(a la Martin Luther)."  Your response to this statement couldn't have been
said more beautifully.  But I find it interesting that T.P. chose Martin
Luther for sake of illustration -- wasn't Luther burned at the stake for
going public with his beliefs?  You think T.P. would've chosen an example
more appropriate to the situation.

>> T.P. was addressed with the reader response that "WHAT [THE VOICE] SAYS
MAKES ME MAD!"  When reading that, I couldn't help but be reminded of the
passage from Acts 7 of the crowds' reaction to Stephen's sermon:  "When they
heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with
their teeth....Then they cried out with a loud voice, and *stopped their
ears*, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and
stoned him..." (emphasis added)

Pastor Schettler once said during a message that the old adage "the 
truth hurts" shouldn't be true.  The truth shouldn't hurt because it's 
there for our benefit, to cause us to recognize the sin within ourselves 
that we might be able to overcome it.  And while I do see his point, I 
still disagree because, no matter the situation, the truth ALWAYS hurts.  
The truth hurts because we are, at the core of our being, so arrogant 
and so full of ourselves that to be confronted with what we truly are, 
to have our faults and shortcomings brought into the light is to thrust 
us through with a razor-sharp blade which has been soaked in salt-water.

So the truth does hurt, and it does make people "mad" because they don't 
want to hear it.  And because they don't want to hear it, they stop 
their ears from hearing it, and shield their eyes from seeing it.

And by the way, we don't "desire" to "make people mad."  We only ask 
that they listen to the truth, and if THE TRUTH is found to be the 
primary cause for their irritation, then they must decide for themselves 
whose side they really want to be on.  And if they don't choose truth, 
the only alternative is error.

>> T.P. called StudentV a "pseudo-intellectual" publication.  This I also
found to be rather ironic coming from this particular person considering that
I have come to define a "pseudo-intellectual" as anyone who uses the prefix
"psuedo" as part of their everyday communication.  "Pseudo-intellectuals" are
simply ignorant people who masquerade as intelligent people.  They are
usually people who take particular pleasure in hearing the sound of their own
voice.  And while they do make great conversationalists, they usually don't
really have anything to say.  They're actually quite avid readers, but, in
conversation, they are simply purveyors of second-hand information.  They
steal the deep thoughts of others, making them their own. 

I said all that to say this:  StudentV is not a "pseudo-intellectual" 
publication as you, all-too-well, pointed out.  I personally feel that 
this publication does just so happen to be an intellectual publication, 
I say this because, most of the time, I have to read certain paragraphs 
2 or 3 times before I actually understand what it is you're trying to 
say.  I guess it goes without saying that I'm a little slow to catch on 
to certain things (which is why I'm in my 5th year here with 3 semesters 
still to go).  But I'm not stupid -- I can prove that...I think.

I'm not asking you to change your style to meet the needs of the average 
American reading level, but I must admit that sometimes I feel like 
you're talking down to me.  We may not all be as well-read or as 
intellectually gifted as you seem to be, but the first thing to keep in 
mind in writing is your audience.  Please don't leave us behind.

I must admit, though, that I do feel a little "smarter" when I finally 
grasp what you're trying to say.  I'm told that I should try to learn at 
least one new thing every day, and for as many times as I've had to look 
up words like "myoptic," "tier," and "syllogism," I must say that my 
vocabulary has definitely benfitted from your essays.

And that's all I have to say about that.

C--

>>> RESPONSE

Well, we certainly appreciate the kind statements. - The Voice

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

>>> COMMENT from L-- regarding the essay comparing the differences between
PCC and political liberalism:

I have received your e-mail in the past, and I have not responded, usually
due to the fact that they deal with too many issues  for me to have the time
to address.  Nevertheless, the last contact I received was so full of errors
on a particular topic that I felt I should focus on this issue.  A lengthy
comparison was made between PCC and a politically liberal ideology.  It seems
that the person who wrote the treatise against the College has
overgeneralized the definition of a liberal and the definition of a
conservative.  A conservative is one who opposes federal involvement in
economic affairs yet supports federal involvement on social issues such as
moral standards.  This is why most conservatives believe that abortion should
be outlawed.  It is a moral issue in which conservatives feel that government
should be involved.  Liberals do, generally speaking, support "big"
government -- unless the issue is a --moral-- one.  Although I have
extensively researched political ideology, I will not ask you to simply take
my word for it, here's what experts in the field of political science say:

Nicolas Comfort, Brewer's Politics, p. 122 (Cassell Publishers Limited,
London, 1993)
Conservative:  a traditionalist who opposes change that he or she sees as
destabilizing, who disapproves of state intervention in the economy, but
believes it should set and enforce moral standards. 

Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind, pp. 7-8 (Regnery Publishing, Inc,
Washington, D.C.)
Any informed conservative is reluctant to condense profound and intellectual
systems to a few pretentious phrases; he prefers to leave that technique to
the enthusiasm of radicals... as a working premise, nevertheless, one can
observe here that the essence of social conservatism is preservation of the
ancient moral traditions of humanity.

As these experts so clearly illustrate, institutional involvement in the
enforcing of moral standards is indeed associated with conservatism and not
liberalism.  The authors of the essay against PCC may wish to do more
research on political ideology before attempting to assign a label to the
College.

In addition,  I quote from this week's e-mail:  "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."  

You stated that since Mr. Pittarese had not been specific in his allegations,
that he was guilty of character assassination, and yet, he was indeed
specific, as he stated, "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.) "  This comment was, in fact, specific, and if I were to
cross-apply your very own definition of character assassination, you
yourselves would be implicated.  However, the legal equivalent of "character
assassination" (libel) requires much more than a lack of specifics in
argumentation.

Again, you have raised several issues with which I do not agree, but I do not
have time to address each one.  I hope that in the interest of accuracy you
will correct your misstatement about the College being liberal.  I would
encourage you to publish my e-mail in its entirety.

>>> RESPONSE

L--,

We want to thank you for your most insightful and well-thought out response
to The Student Voice.  While we disagree with your characterization of the
essay, we must say that it is refreshing to get an intelligent viewpoint.
 (And we are going to respond to it exactly the same way we do everyone
else's - aggressively.  Please don't take it personally. . . .)

Anyhow, the basic point that we think needs to be made is that you either
missed the whole point of our essay, or that we didn't make the point of our
essay as clear as it should have been.  We will give you the benefit of the
doubt and assume we didn't do a good enough job explaining it.

You write that "It seems that the person who wrote the treatise against the
College has overgeneralized the definition of a liberal and the definition of
a conservative."

In the essay, we did say that "Now, this is obviously over-simplifying what
is in reality considerably more complex" when we were explaining the
philosophy of a conservative.  We understand that we overgeneralized things,
and we assumed that everyone was intelligent enough to recognize this.

This was not intended to be a political discourse on political ideology.
 After all, volumes and volumes have been written about this topic, and so we
certainly realize that to do it in a few paragraphs is hardly feasible.

You also said that "The authors of the essay against PCC may wish to do more
research on political ideology before attempting to assign a label to the
College."

Again, we never "assign[ed] a label to the College."  This, too, we thought
was fairly obvious.  It would be ludicrous for us to say that "PCC is liberal
politically."  The entire point of our essay was that there were some very
ironic similarities, and we left it to the reader to determine the
significance.  We never attached a label, nor did we even imply a label.  

We would be more than happy to match wits with you on political ideology;
however, we feel that that dialogue would be interesting only to you and me
and perhaps a few others, but it would no doubt otherwise cause a mass exodus
of our readers. . . .

About the Tony P. issue you write, "You stated that since Mr. Pittarese had
not been specific in his allegations, that he was guilty of character
assassination. . . ."  

This is partly correct.  When making allegations of DISHONESTY without
specific instances to back them up, we consider it to be character
assassination, as do most others.  You then mention that he has, in fact,
been specific.  After all, he pointed out specifically, Biblical correction
and anonymity.  The only problem is that these "specifics" have not a single
thing to do with honesty!  These are simply disagreements, which we don't
mind at all.  But to say that these "specifics" support charges of
dishonesty?  Come on. . . .

You said that "if I were to cross-apply your very own definition of character
assassination, you yourselves would be implicated."

Ok, we would love to hear how you would "cross-apply" our very own definition
of character assassination.  In fact, we invite you to clarify yourself,
because our definiton of character assassination in this instance is making
charges of dishonesty with nothing to back it up.  If you can take that
definition and apply it to us, we would be extremely curious to find out how
you would do it.

Then you said that "the legal equivalent of "character assassination" (libel)
requires much more than a lack of specifics in argumentation."

Not necessarily.  All that needs to be done (and for your sake we are
overgeneralizing a bit) is for charges to be made that are heard by a third
party that tend to injure another person.  Injury can be damage to
reputation, and if unfounded charges of dishonesty are not injurous to
reputation, then we don't know what is.  So, recheck your copy of Black's Law
Dictionary under "Defamation."

Next you say that "Again, you have raised several issues with which I do not
agree. . . ."

This is perfectly fine, and we don't mind addressing differences.  This is
what The Voice is all about.

Lastly you request, "I would encourage you to publish my e-mail in its
entirety."  

Consider it done.

Thank you for your comments, and we look forward to more in the future!

THE STUDENT VOICE

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

>>> COMMENT from A-- regarding a DC experience

Dear StudentV, 

I know that writing right after attending one of the more disappointing
sessions at DC, this is the worst time to write about the rules and
regulations that govern this place; because there is still steam rising
from my ears, but here goes.  I was at DC just a few short minutes ago. 
It would seem that I have complimentary lifetime membership there; since
I have attended every week except once this year.  This week's DC
standing was one that will stand in infamy.  Right after my seventh hour
class, I proceeded to walk next door to have my weekly frowning on by the
faculty or staff here at PCC  -needless to say I do not enjoy it.  I
waited in line for little more than five minutes before I was called
into the inner room.  At that time the lady pulled out my demerit sheet,
this time there was a staple.  Now my stomach turned a little, I didn't
know what my floor leader or someone else could have written me up for;
the possibilities were endless.  The fear quickly subsided as Mr.
Richard (we'll give him a pseudo name to keep his anonymity) opened it;
not revealing a campused sheet for me to sign, but just another sheet of
demerits.  Well, I sighed and Mr. Richard proceeded to read off the
demerits one by one, not breathing between any statement to give me a
chance to refute -many of these things I was hearing about for the first
time.  Then he read from the last page: "lights on after lights out on
Tuesday night."  I replied "innocent, the floor leader came into my room
and began to accuse us of having our lights on.  Our room has three
little lamps and he couldn't tell us even who had his lights on.  Our
floor leader was shooting off blind accusations."  Then I saw the moment
of doubt in the DC judges eyes and I jumped on it (as one must do) saying
confidently again "I didn't have my light on after lights out."  Mr.
Richard then continued to say ( what most everyone has heard) that there
was nothing he could do, that the floor leader was probably right, and
that he would have to give me the demerits; then he circled the allotted
demerits.  Well, I wasn't going down without a fight.  I said, "So you
don't believe me?"  That got Mr. Richard's attention.  He continued to
say  "No that's not it, it is just that it is your word against your
floor leaders word, and he wrote you up so we have to believe in his
judgement."  That got me mad, I firmly stated "So in DC's mind my floor
leader could accuse me for anything and I would be guilty for it without
a chance of  DC hearing me out.  Yes, I understand."  Then Mr. Richard
read me off my new total (43 -10 in that DC alone), and I left another
DC frustrated and irate.  Something, has to be done.

>>> RESPONSE

Well, A--, you are certainly an example which proves the point of our essay
about the DC procedures (Issue 1, No. 1).  The solutions we suggested would
alleviate the problems you had, but yet will allow the administration to
retain that control that they so desperately must have.  Everyone would be a
little better off, not the least of which would be the students.  We are just
curious when the administration is going to implement these procedures?  If
they decided not to, then why?  We think you deserve an answer. - The Voice

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

>>> E-mail us at   studentv@aol.com

>>> DON'T FORGET TO VOTE ON TUESDAY!!!!!!

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

   THE STUDENT VOICE, PCC's alternative newsletter