The conduct of a paper’s editors most certainly influences my perception of the paper, and Hauser has convinced me the Daily is edited by an illiterate.

In a statement that is directly attributed to Ms. Hauser she states that the less-than-flattering job descriptions of three recently dismissed editors, as published in Toons, are attributed to the editors themselves. As far as I can tell such descriptions are written as third-person narrative, and aren’t attributable to anyone other than the author. Maybe her copy of Toons came with extra quotation marks.

Moreover, Ms. Hauser claims “there is nothing in there saying `this is a joke.'” Apparently she was too upset by the first part of the advertisement to read the second, where the intent of the text is clearly indicated.

To the much debated story “`We’ve heard that you . just make up silly stuff and write it out like it was true .’ Yes. But only to make people laugh.” Maybe it’s just me, but such a statement seems to indicate the surrounding text is not entirely true.

If anyone losses their job as a result of this most ridiculous situation I hope it is the humorless Ms. Hauser. In the mean time I’ll just have to remember that only the most outrageous parts of articles are worth reading. The rest is probably just useless information there for some silly reason like giving context to the story.

Zachary Kotlarek

Sophomore

Computer engineering