Only option? You are saying the ONLY option that Keene State had was a face scanner? Wait wait wait.... let me make sure I got this... the ONLY OPTION IS A FACE SCANNER??

You already have a person that is paid to stand at the front and make sure everyone uses the hand scanner, what are they doing letting people through? Why don't you just put up a half wall so that students are forced to walk by 1 scanner (having 1 person trying to watch 4 lines is stupid anyway) and make sure that it beeps.

This is like people hiding chicken sandwiches in their pasta box at hoot-n-scoot (you all know what I'm talking about!) What did they do to fix it? Did they buy a face scanner to verify you are you and an x-ray machine to see what is in your box and a scale to verify that the box isn't over weight? NO! They have the person look inside the friggin box!

The problem is not that the hand scanners don't work, it is that they are not being enforced. You think a face scanner is going to be any different? I think we should look into who voted that we get this stupid thing instead of fixing the actual problem. Is it some sci-fi junkie that thought it was cool or are their kickbacks involved? The students have the right to know! It doesn't make sense that this is the logical answer to the problem.

Maybe KSC should stop throwing away my tuition money on expensive machines that will not be used and actually hire people that will do their job.

I am not sure I understand Mr. Bisnett's comment about the KSC bookstore being a business and recommending to sell to a third party such as Amazon or Half.com. Last time I checked, Amazon and Half are businesses too and they want to make money too. Mr. Bisnett, do you know that the profits KSC bookstore makes are used to subsidize student activities and scholarship funds? At least when you sell to the bookstore you are helping other Keene College students. Can you say the same when you sell to Megacorp (Amazon or Half)?

Re: "...42 percent of women who have heart attacks die within one year compared to 24 percent of men.”

This typifies the fraudulently put statements that seek to switch heart disease from "a man's disease" to a "woman's disease" in order to get even more of the gender health funding allocated for women.

During our pre-1960s' racism, we focused exclusively on helping whites although blacks were

far worse off.

Similar to this racism is today's new sexism regarding heart disease: we focus almost

exclusively on women although men as a group, especially black men (for them, racism is

revisited), are far more at risk of the disease at every age. Thousands of male doctors campaign

against women's heart disease but not against men's. How many women campaign against

heart disease in men, the more at-risk group? Of the thousands of yearly reports on women's

heart disease, how many read as if men literally did not exist?

This is sexism. What would we call it if women developed heart disease ten years sooner than

men and died of it at a higher rate at every age, and everyone focused on men's heart disease,

often as if women did not exist?

See "Why More Women Than Men Die of Heart Disease" at tinyurl.com/pkkajz

I don't see what Bruce Willis has to do with Keene State College. The only connection I see him having to NH at all is he was in "Live Free or Die Hard". Our state motto being "Live Free or Die". That's a pretty tenuous connection.

I'm hoping this is a hoax.

It Will Take A Miracle For You To Ever Date Again….

It’s funny that you asked where the men’s studies courses are because if you’ve been educated at all (which we’re not sure if you have) you would know that men’s studies are embedded in every subject from American History to Political Science, and almost everything in between. Also when you take Women’s Studies courses the discussion of equality is never limited to only women. Gender equality is a huge part of the Women’s Studies curriculum and of feminism. Colleges don’t offer Women’s Studies because they believe women are a minority; they have Women’s Studies to offer another perspective on politics, society, and history through a feminist lens. Women’s Studies focuses on gender, race, class, sexuality, and many other areas that you are too close minded to understand.

It’s not the case that women have never gotten what they wanted throughout history. How would you explain the suffrage movement, or Roe v. Wade? Also your quote about Indecisiveness being a female trait is flawed, last time we checked indecisiveness was a human trait. It’s not that we don’t know what we want; that couldn’t be farther from the truth. The issue is that we want everything. We want and expect equal rights across the board, and we also want to see the sexist and ignorant people like yourself become educated before you open your mouth or write a degrading and ridiculous article based on a few bad dates.

It’s a shame that because you’ve had unpleasant experiences with some women that you think its okay to degrade and diminish the women’s movement as a whole. We feel sorry for you that your life is so empty, and that you get off from putting others down. We would like to thank you for your input, because in reality it’s people like you who make our movement even stronger.

Written with love from The Feminist Collective

"Students attending not only KSC, but all institutions worldwide need to recognize the severity of the consequences INFRINGED upon questionable Facebook activity." Sorry for the caps...but I don't think the writer meant infringed (which means INTRUDED, more or less). Maybe IMPOSED?

Is this a mean April fools joke or is this for real????

Is this for real?? or was this just a mean april fools joke??

"The outfield is quickly becoming a train wreck"-This article is a train wreck Sean, since you have no problem being critical I will indulge as well. Your editor must of asked for two thousand words of ripping the Red Sox and failed comedy, because that's the only way this is a successful piece. Nowhere do you mention any positives, and though you may feel it is warranted you have a skewed view of the Red Sox off season. Sean you are correct, 2006 was tough but to call it an awful team? They lost the division lead August 2, 2006, if you remember correctly injuries to pitching the lineup and the bullpen is what was there downfall not "pitching and defense". The fact is that our organizational depth was rotten 2006, we had to go Jason Johnson and Kevin Jarvis. Now we have great depth in our minor leagues and on the bench. The Rotation is incredibly deep, and NO Wakefield will be out of the rotation when Dice-K comes back, Dice-K will never come out of the bullpen, there is a better chance that Buchholz would be moved to the bullpen than Dice-K. I love it man you even take shots at the bullpen! Wagner was big for us? he spent like one month with us, and Saito didn't do anything. Another year of Ramirez, Delcarmen and some true lefty options to go with Bard in the 8th should make up one of the best bullpens in the league, especially with Wake in there soon. You are right Papelbon went away from his fastball in 2009, but it is ignorant to think that will be the case in 2010, all reports is that he took the Angels lose hard and has worked really hard this off season to get a secondary pitch, Papelbon is way to good and young to count him out Sean. I could go one forever fixing your errors, this piece is true blind opinion that focuses on how negative you can get, it is filled with fallacy though. Ellsbury is in left field for the right reasons. I will put it in Lehman's terms for you, Ellsbury looked good in center because he is "The fastest man in the world" but made up for many errors in the line he took towards the ball. His spectacular plays will eventually become shoulder injuries, and he is too valuable for that. Instead the Red Sox did the correct thing and put him in left field, where his legs will be even stronger and he can learn proper lines to take under Cameron. Ellsbury-Cameron-Drew make up in my opinion the second best defensive outfield in the MLB only to Tampa Bay. "the offseason was really best described as uninspired"-horrible line from you, I need you to know, the Red Sox spent more money than any team this year. One glaring weakness last year was the left side of there defense, Lowell had no mobility, Bay was below average and until they got Gonzalez they were weak at short. They added the best defensive 3B in the game (according to Joe Maddon who has Longoria which is saying something), a very solid and sound Short Stop, and Ellsbury will be great. If you like the Lackey signing or not, he can pitch at Yankee Stadium and in the American League. By far he was the best pitcher available this offseason and, instead of going for Halladay, the Lackey signing has allowed us to build a surplus of talent to use to go after talent in July or the Offseason, most notably Adrian Gonzalez. Sean, I remember what people thought of the 2003 Red Sox off season, they got a ton of cast-offs: Bill Mueller, Kevin Millar, David Ortiz, Mike Timlin. These guys all worked out, it's a funny thing what Fenway can do for the seemingly average hitter I.E. JASON BAY!!!! He didn't deserve 5 years, he would have what Mike Lowell is now in 5 years. I could Keep going but I rest my case 97-65 and a Wild Card Berth playing the Angels in the ALDS AGAIN.

another great artcle that hit its mark!