Tue 20 Mar 2018
- The award-winning student news website of Imperial College

Know something you shouldn't? Tell us, using our quick, 100% anonymous tip-off form!

Live! - Opinion

This article is an opinion piece and should be taken as such. It is highly likely to be biased, but either the article itself or the ensuing discussion will probably be entertaining. Live! takes no editorial line on opinion pieces.

Coffee Break - The Missing Article

Jun 08 2006 14:37
The Hoff
Read the full article which should have been in this week's Coffee Break, but didn't make it.
This week's Coffee Break - but something is missing

The unhappy Felix camp have been making their views known, but failed to get an article past the editor of the new "Rover" section. Live! is proud to present the rejected article:

"It's the final week of Coffee Break and surprisingly for everyone, it seems like The Hoff is getting sentimental in his old age.

The Coffee Break email account is, as you would expect, bursting at the seams with angry letters. "Hoff", you scream, "why are you so mean? Sometimes it seems like you don't care about anybody except for yourself." Well, as per usual, you are wrong. The Hoff is a humanitarian at heart, and cares more for his fellow man than anything else. Apart from his Special Purpose of course.

As you are all probably unaware there has been a huge drama bomb let off in the Felix office. The great oppressor, Rupert 'Bourgeois' Neate ? the so-called editor of Felix, has been exercising his executive powers, deciding that the best way to extend his penis and increase his self-worth would be to fire our beloved comrade, Mr. Vitali Lazurenko.

Comrade Lazurenko will go down in Felix history as a hero for us all. When The Great Revolution comes and the Felix staff finally rise against their oppressors, then Comrade Lazurenko will be the inspiration. In years to come, when the free writers of the Felix republic are gathered in dB's, generous helpings of the finest vodka will be raised to the skies and together we will remember our shared hero, Comrade Lazurenko.

Comrade Lazurenko, like the rest of us, was just a Man. But he was brave enough to fight for his beliefs - the same beliefs that we all share. The belief that a Felix writer should be free to write whatever they want, without the editor barging in every other minute demanding that somebody fixes His Page and His Mistakes. The belief that if a writer is hungover, then a certain kindness should be extended to them, man to fellow man. The belief that just because you win an election that more than half the college do not vote in, you are not better than anyone else.

Comrade Lazurenko?s crime was to just to exist. To the cruel Felix regime, that is enough. A free spirit is just another spirit to be crushed. Our friend takes the most exquisite of photographs; the establishment moans that somebody hasn?t put a one pixel border around his picture. We pour our time and our souls into producing the best work possible; they complain that they have to write a one hundred word editorial column. Together we try to give you the best paper that we can; Our Dear Leader moans that he broke the computer and we can?t fix it.

This small article has been slipped in whilst the editor's lazy eye was glancing elsewhere. Perhaps, it doesn?t mean much to the rest of you, but to the exploited peoples of Felix, this is our chance to strike back."

Email this Article | Share on Facebook | Print this Article

Discussion about “Coffee Break - The Missing Article”

The comments below are unmoderated submissions by Live! readers. The Editor accepts no liability for their content, nor for any offence caused by them. Any complaints should be directed to the Editor.
Jun 08 2006 16:23

None of the Rover team have seen this article before. Neither has the editor.

If "The Hoff" had hung around in the office long enough to ensure that his article had been published correctly, then it would have.

Given that none of the Rover team saw the article before publication, it can only be assumed that he named his file incorrectly, and as a result no-one even opened, let alone considered rejecting, the non-existant article.

Jun 08 2006 16:26

In addition, has no-one seen the cute little The Hoff treasure hunt signs around college? Surely if the article The Hoff wanted to print his article which did not mention the treasure hunt, then he would not have been seen around college putting up the signs?

Jun 08 2006 18:57

"None of the Rover team have seen this article before"

You mean all two of them?

Jun 08 2006 19:01

the picture is a little misleading, the article would be replacing the half of the page you dont see.

Jun 08 2006 19:53

Team mediocrity: if there are two in Rover Team, that leaves only one for "Felix Team". So I don't see why Felix Team was referring to "themselves" as "we".

Jun 08 2006 22:01

But we always knew that that "we" has inflated self-perceptions, of course.

Jun 09 2006 01:50

In response to the comments above: I've never known the Hoff to be anything but punctual with his contributions. It's hardly likely that an experienced writer like his Hoffness would be as foolish as to simply name his file wrongly, or to have put it in the wrong place.

This whole sorry situation has descended into utter farce; hiding behind pseudonyms is cowardly and inappropriate for contributers that are supposed to be answerable to their readership. If, for example, the Hoff's article was not uploaded to the publishers in some twisted attempt to "pay back" the dismissed deputy and in order to prevent dissent, this is appalling and deeply childish.

It seems odd in a community of writers that consensus could not be reached by discussion; instead, we've descended to name-calling and petty retribution.

8. Sam   
Jun 09 2006 12:42

The Hoff regularly publishes under a pseudonym - is he cowardly and unaccountable to his readership?

You can't have it both ways you know ;o)

9. Andy   
Jun 09 2006 13:01

Hah, you know, I had thought about that. I suspect most people know who he is, and he doesn't go to any great lengths to ensure no-one knows him.

If you like, cut out the bit about pseudonyms. I realise it's a bit of an unfair statement, but I stand by the rest of what I said.

Jun 09 2006 16:10

No, the point is - no-one saw this article before it appeared on Vit's website. Not even the people who "refused to publish it"....

It has been created to cause controversy...

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a new George Galloway.

Jun 09 2006 17:04

According to a source who wished to remain unnamed, one of the Rover team stopped the uploading of the article (in a rude manner), without having seen what it was. Where is the trust?

12. Cynic   
Jun 09 2006 18:51

And a new Tony Blair in the Rover Team, lying through their teeth to keep the truth away from the public.

13. Jon   
Jun 10 2006 23:31

My journalist mate does all his work under a pseudonmyn, doesn't matter a bit as its still obvious he wrote his articles...

I think our editor this year was rubbish, as he gets paid to edit a newspaper which is always published full of typos and gramatical errors.

Jun 13 2006 09:39

In reply to Jon:

surely you mean he gets paid to edit a newspaper that is always published full of typos and grammatical errors, rather than "...a newspaper which is always published full of typos and grammatical errors".

I agree that the grammar and spelling in Felix have been appalling, although it is the job of the copy editor to ensure correct spelling and grammar, but if you will criticize the man on his grammar, at least have the decency to do so using correct grammar yourself.

15. Jon   
Jun 13 2006 10:52

Sorry I forgot a comma , , , , , , , ,

I am not a journalist, and I certainly don't get paid to write comments on here, perhaps if I did I would proof read my posts

Jun 13 2006 11:34

No, Jon, you did not simply forget a comma, you used 'which' instead of 'that'. The publication with grammatical mistakes and typos (or typographical errors if one wishes to be correct) is part of the main clause and not a dependent clause so should be expressed with 'that', not ', which' (the comma would break the clause and introduce a dependent clause).

To criticise a man for poor grammar whilst using poor grammar yourself, is the sort of impertinence up with which I will not put.

17. tom t   
Jun 13 2006 12:47

not to mention the missing 'm' in gramatical in the original posting...

pedants, I don't know...

Jun 13 2006 12:57

You'll see the difference when Andy takes over next year. That's all that needs to be said, really.

Jun 13 2006 13:04

It's quite alright to use "which" in a main clause.

Jun 13 2006 14:51

No, it is not quite alright to use 'which' in a main clause; 'which' must be prefaced with a comma, which in this case will introduce a dependent clause.

Jun 13 2006 15:35

Shouldn't 'proof read' be one word?

Jun 13 2006 17:06

Many grammarians insist on a distinction without any historical justification. Many of the best writers in the language couldn't tell you the difference between them, while many of the worst think they know.

Jun 13 2006 17:17

'Which' must be prefaced by a comma?

Alright, then.

, Which house do you live in?

Anyway, in his case, it wasn't a main clause.

Aug 25 2006 13:06

In response to the election, from an inside source, he cried like a girl when everyone elses' campaign ran "he's rubbish, elect anyone but him". Evidently they were correct and the popularity contest that was (is) union elections continues to provide strange and unsuitable fruit.

Add your comment:

If you can see this, something is broken (either with your browser, or with our system). Please leave the box below empty, or your comment will be considered to be spam.

See Also

  1. Felix in Turmoil
    08 Jun 06 | News
  2. Felix Make Huge Loss
    03 Aug 04 | News
  3. John Clifford: Time to go
    21 Jun 02 | Random Rant

Live! Poll

How frequently would you like to see a CGCU magazine being published