Skip to content
The Concordian
Menu
  • News
    • Campus
    • Community
    • Nation
    • World
  • Variety
    • Class of 2020
    • Art
    • Film/TV
    • Food
    • Music
    • Theatre
    • Events
    • Sustainability
  • Sports
    • Fall
    • Winter
    • Spring
    • Professional
    • Features
  • Opinions
    • Columns
    • Editorials
    • Letters
  • Blogs
    • Politics
    • Reviews
  • Submissions
  • About
    • Staff
    • Advertising
    • Contact
    • Discussion Guidelines
  • Submit News
    • Press Releases/Articles
    • News Tips
    • Letter to the Editor
  • Staff
    • Desarae Kohrs
    • Noah Bloch
    • Ephriam Cooper
    • Sam Kalow
    • Ross Motter
    • Saige Mattson
    • Liz Komagum
    • Olivia Kelly
    • Trenten Cavaness
    • Megan Noggle
    • Morgan Holecek
    • Kayla Molstre
    • Alyssa Czernek
    • Jordon Perkins
    • Brennan Collins
Menu

Responding to ‘Butt-Barriers’ criticism

Posted on November 20, 2014November 19, 2014 by Connor Edrington

Dear Ms. Eckberg,

First off, thank you for responding to my article (I was beginning to think that no one reads it). I want to take a moment to respond to each of your critiques, but I’ll have to make it quick, because I’m – as you correctly point out – on a deadline.

I said that butt-barriers would “probably not” enforce the smoking ban because I think that most smokers were already complying with the ban, and that the barriers would provide little extra incentive.

You said that smokers have other options for disposing of their “smoldering tobacco product, (they can) snuff it out on the metal or rock sides like a big kid and toss the remainder of (their) cigarette in the receptacle.” But this isn’t really an option, because that could easily cause an accidental fire.

If there were Pop-Tart wrappers floating around and no proper disposal systems around, then yes, I would blame Concordia, and I would write an article asking for them to install trash cans.

As to my “(comment) that the ‘butt-barriers’ are a sham attempt (at) eco-friendliness” and your proposal for future advertisements on them: you are correct. I hadn’t thought of that and it’s an intriguing idea.

You claimed I incorrectly summarized Erica Bjelland and made her sound incompetent. Ms. Bjelland has been a friend of mine since high school who gave me permission to use that quote, exactly as I did in the article, and which I did not change, for the sake of integrity. If that sentence made her seem incompetent, then I am sorry; such is the nature of quoting Facebook messages, I suppose. If I had included the entire conversation, you also would have read my eloquent response, “lol can i quote u (sic)?”

Finally, I never said that “dealing with the ash urn couldn’t possibly be a waste of time and/or money,” merely that the time and/or money spent dealing with the ash could be offset through other practices.

Your other critiques are directed at other people, and I shall let those people defend themselves (though I will say I think the world maps are funny). But I would like to once again thank you for responding to my article, you made some good points, and I encourage anyone reading to do the same.

  • Connor Edrington
    Connor Edrington

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest News

  • Concordia Holds 16th annual Golden Cobbs Award Ceremony April 24, 2025
  • Laughing Through It All: A Research Conference on Suicide and Stand Up  April 24, 2025
  • Looking Back on a Legacy: Halvorson and Davies End Term with SGA  April 17, 2025
  •  A Look Inside the 2025 URSCA Symposium  April 17, 2025
  • Youth Incarceration and Depression: A Cycle of Neglect April 17, 2025
  • Getting ready for 2025 Cornstock: The 502s, Flashmob, and GG and the Groove  April 17, 2025

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
© 2025 The Concordian | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme