can’t please everyone

i got this text tonight:
i don’t know how to go about doing this, but i want to question the statement by the “up law community” that was not even discussed at any time by a significant number of the community, the news in anc is “the up law community” asks for ouster

i answered:
(name of the individual, which i am omitting to protect the person still), 1st sentence of d statement is “we, MEMBERS of the up law faculty & students’.  ergo, nag-ingat nman so as not to claim that its the ENTIRE grp. diffrnt nman yn e. also, thos who arnt in agreemnt w/ the st8mnt wrnt/arnt forcd 2 sign.

2nd text nya:
if i release a statement entitled statement by the up law community & the first sentence is we the members of the up law community, i will assume that that is from the whole up law community, same thing as if i release a statement from “(the block where this person comes from)” and we say we the member of “(the block where this person comes from),” i’ll assume lahat, hindi nakasulat na “statement of some members of the up law community”

text back naman ako:

for u, its the same.  for othrs its nt. the st8mnt is nt forcd on u nor any1 4 that mattr. no1 is forcd 2 sign it.

3rd text nya:

(name of the individual), i’ll accept that if you clarify with anc, which is carried it as a ticket tape news.  this is not the first time this has been done this year. that statements have been attributed to those who were not even consulted.

text back ulit ako:
(name of the individual), how ANC intrpretd a st8mnt writtn by no less than the faculty of UP law is not w/n my cntrl. pls dnt start abt non-consultation. thats the very reason why freedom walls were posted all over the college. for students’ thoughts to be heard.  did u write thr?  thr was likewise txt brigs to blk presdnts abt a mtg re: the issue monday night. did u go thr? its nt fair 4 u 2 raise such point aftr the fact, aftr u hav bn gven the opportunity 2 voice out ur opinions but did not utilize such chances.  also been writing to the oneuplaw egrp since last wk pa. even asking for inputs. did u write back?  if yes is ur answr to all questns & agn if u wr forcd 2 sign & agree 2 such stand, only then cld u validly raise or even accuse us of non-consultation.

4th txt nya:
you are contradicting yourself my dear, if that really is not a statement of the up law community, you need not defend the issue of consultation, consultation would not have been required.  so which is which? answer me this, if it’s not a statement of the up law community why entitle it as “a statement of the up law community?” i’m sorry to be in such a mood, but this could have been avoided if the words that were used were the appropriate words. “statement of those whose signature appear underneath” doesn’t have the same ring to it?

final text ko:
i dnt want 2 waste my thots nor energies on ths, as thr is stil a lot 2 be done. i doubt if u got what i was talkn abt. am nt being dfensiv abt consult8n, u wr the 1 who brought that up. i suggest if u have any mor complaints abt such st8mnt, go str8 2 eithr sir te, mam avena, dean carlota, who wr most actv in the discusions.

hay.  damn if you do, damn if you don’t.  tawanan ko na lang.  bwahahaha.


8 thoughts on “can’t please everyone

  1. tamethewaves says:

    it basically is a statement of the up law community because they are sentiments of different members of the community, right? there is nothing stopping that person from releasing his own statement and collecting signatures to make another release. i think the freedom walls, fora, and classroom discussions are sufficient means to survey the general stand of the college. although i get what he is saying…i honestly feel that way about some statements made by the university council saying that certain sentiments are shared by the whole up body. but then again, it would be my fault for giving the student leaders the mandate to speak on my behalf.


  2. Anonymous says:

    hay, semantics…

    number cruncher ( says:

    hay, semantics… just visited the vincula website… i can’t believe the fight is being bogged down and disrupted and in danger of being derailed because of semantics…

    then again, this has been happening ever since the malolos congress… basta, keep the fight! make a difference! 😀


    • lobit says:

      Re: hay, semantics…

      thanks for the encouragement! 🙂 especially since this is not an easy task. unfortunately, not everyone (case in point, the person/s who texted me and wrote comments herein) appreciates that even as we (my fellow law school presidents included) surface, we are likewise exposing ourselves to sinister elements.


  3. Anonymous says:


    You could have just said it was a “Statement from Concerned Members of the UP Law Community.” Seriously, Lobit, you should know that the UP College of Law is sharply divided on the next step to take in these interesting times. Please don’t presume that just because we elected you LSG President, your thoughts reflect our own.


    • lobit says:

      Re: suggestion

      not presuming.

      i believe 150+ signatures on the first morning after the statement was released, as well as some other blocks who say that they just read the statement, have no objections but were not able to sign at that point in time prove that those are not my thoughts alone.

      i hope you identify yourself and talk with more people in the college so that you’d know if other students really share your viewpoint…i know i do that.

      suggestion din. you could have written to me last week when we were trying to get inputs from people – through the egroup, through text brigs asking for people to attend. or texted me, if you don’t know my number, a lot of people in the college do, you could ask it from them. or you could have approached me in person. of course, before the statement was drafted. that would have been more proactive of you…whoever you are. (couldn’t call you by your name, sorry. i hope you could identify yourself next time).

      never been a dogmatic leader. i always try to consider opinions of people – of course, the views i release would reflect that of the majority. your last statement amuses me actually.

      actually, if you don’t agree with the statement, i encourage you to draft a statement of your own. you’re free to do so. 🙂


  4. Anonymous says:

    you can’t please everyone

    Hi Lobit, yes you can’t please everyone, but we didn’t elect you to please us, di ka naman clown 🙂 Joke. While I do not entirely agree with some statements in the past, I never felt that the statement does not reflect the sentiments of the community. I’m actually glad that we issued the statement.

    I would love to read about other people’s statements about the issue. Maybe your texter can post his on the egroup? That will be more interesting and more fruitful.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s