The iFad (A satirical piece)

the bus service the last year has decreased dramatically. the rainbow shuttles around campus run on no schedule whatsoever and you never know exactly what route they will take. you can easily wait 30 mins for one. There is also no shuttle from the parking structure. riding bikes on dole, waialae and university is a risky endeavor. Furthermore they should have 20 minute parking spots by Hamilton library and the bookstore.

Wow, let's find SOMETHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT. You're right, there is no point in my responding to these comments. Except to point out my opinion hasn't changed and neither has yours, and you spent valuable minutes of your life getting worked up over an nothing. Hope you're happy!

On what basis are you attempting to label Nicole's argument as having no merit? Because she is replying to an article in the Opinions section? Because her argument is an opinion? If we go by that standard, your article has just as little merit as her letter to the editor.

I fail to even see the point of your replying to the comments for this article. What are you trying to establish? That you don't have trouble with women? Nobody cares, really. You ask that Nicole not reply so harshly to, in your own words, an article "meant to largely induce controversial conversation." Well congratulations, that's what your article did. Don't get defensive when dissenting viewpoints react to your own, otherwise don't pretend that your aim in this article was to create "controversy." If you weren't prepared to receive backlash or arguments against your opinion, don't even bother publishing them. There is a degree of consequence and responsibility you face when publishing something, opinion or not. If you can't face that fact, then stop writing for the Ka Leo.

By the way, everything I wrote is an opinion and has no merit. Just wanted to save some time for you and point that out.

Yes! Thank you, Nicole Brodie! How and why is William Prater writing for KaLeo. Being a journalism major doesn't count! His writing is not clear at all. "What am I trying to say?" Exactly! A decent writer doesn't question his own writing, but is confident in his work that he need not ask any questions. Speaking on content, one can not judge the personality of a "sexy girl" or a "cute girl" by the mere physical appearance. I am sure there is some correlation between looks and confidence in one's personality. Some fairly attracted girls who I may first conclude they have to have extreme confidence in themselves since "with those looks they can get anything they want." Quite the contrary in other cases. Some of these girls actually have diminished their confidence purely from the fact of others' perception of them.

And sorry William, in starting a relationship with a female, whether friendly or romantic, Men have to be the one to open them up. A Woman wants to powerful from the power transferred over by the Man. Girls don't like boys like you because you're the type to wait around and see for the girl to be the man in your relationship.

Trouble with women? Do you know me? I never once said I have "trouble with women". In fact, if I didn't talk to and socialize with a wide variety of women, this article would never have been written. I do appreciate (and obviously you are one of them) women who can enjoy an intellectual conversation and are quite aware of themselves and the world around them. And Nicole, this article was written 9 days before the Houseless 4.1 article, I'm sorry that my perspective may have changed over that period of time and that they were published concurrently. I'm sorry if the article offended you in any way, as you are entitled to feel the way you feel and think what you think, but that's why it is in the "Opinions" section. If this was Features or News your argument may have merit. I have chosen to allow this to be run in Thursday's paper because I feel your opinion should be shared as well. I, however, would ask that you please consider not reacting so harshly and withhold from making assumptions about someone you have never met over an article (that was meant largely to induce controversial conversation) in a college paper opinions section.

Thanks man. It's been fun so far.

Thanks for making assumptions, Anita. "Mommy" and "daddy" have refused to give me any help BECAUSE they don't like the fact that I'm doing this. I don't sleep in the tent anymore anyways, and have been rained on while sleeping multiple times. I find it exhilirating. I leave all of my stuff in my tent every day, if someone wants to steal it, fine. All of my clothes are from Goodwill. All of my food is cheap. This is about becoming less materialistic and breaking away from the bonds society has imposed on me since I was young. If you don't like it, I'm sorry.

To William Prater,

I read two of your articles in the paper. The one titled “Houseless not Homeless…” and “The Cute Conundrum.” In the former, you seemed enlightened, like you had reached some pinnacle of human understanding and freed yourself from society’s oppressive bonds. In the latter, you seemed a tool of those very bonds. You speak of quiet desperation yet seem unable to see how it affects your sisters. Along with the message of “more, more, more” most women have also been told (explicitly or implicitly) that their greatest achievement in life is to please men. I would like you to take a moment to imagine how such a message may affect one’s spirit. Similarly, imagine how it would feel to be appreciated mostly for your body and approached over and over by people, only to find out that they really don’t care who you are at all. I assure you, this is not how women are “spoiled by males”—at least, not in the way that you meant it. Quiet desperation, indeed.

You started your “Conundrum” article talking about the division between two types of girls: the cute ones and the sexy ones. Such a statement discounts all the achievements, thoughts, and feelings that these girls have and reduces them down to their appearances. This is called objectification. (By the way, what was your reasoning for pairing girls with males rather than girls and boys or females and males?)

“You never try for the sexy girls” yet go on to say that they “want to marry a rich doctor who drives a Mercedes.” Extrapolating traits of select individuals onto a larger population is widely viewed as unsound and unfair (stereotyping), especially when the physical traits are used to predict personalities. My advice is that you stop assuming that part of the “available selection of girls” are “intimidating and unavailable” (more than slightly contradictory) and start seeing them for the complex, thinking, feeling human beings they are. “Stop worrying so much about [their] appearance” and become a real example of how “not all guys are pigs.”

Your objectifying and stereotyping will make it hard for you to relate to people on a personal level and prevent you from learning who they really are. This may have much to do with your difficulty with women. Let’s all commit to creating a world where people “open up” (as you suggested), learn who others are, and not judge their worth by their three-week old beard growth or how “sexy” or “cute” they may be.

To the editors: please consider more carefully the editorials that you publish and their offensive nature. I cannot imagine that you would have published such an article if it was so crudely telling African-American or homosexual students to be more approachable or likeable.

Thanks for that. You make an excellent point. Of the three billion plus "girls" in the world, there are clearly only two types. I wonder which one I am. I really hope I'm cute, so I can meet your mom. Moreover, I wonder which type of boy you are: obtuse or extremely obtuse.

Way to generalize buddy. That'll get you girls for sure. And yeah there are the girls out there who don't put as much necessity on their looks and have great personalities, so why're you telling us this? Go for those girls. Oh, wait, they're probably not attractive enough for you!
And why should any girl open up to any guy? That says a lot about a girl, if just cause you say you're not out to get laid that they should give you a chance? Who's to say you even deserve that? There may be legit reasons these "cute" girls aren't opening up to you. Who's the larger group? The girls. So obviously you should check YOUR approach before berating the general population of girls in their 20's.