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
(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.