Dear "Beetle,"

You are completely right to feel this way in light of the way the editorial came across and the note on which it ended. For some lame reason, I sent the DC what I thought was the final version but in fact wasn't, and the final 3 paragraphs were left off. You may find them as worthy of ridicule, but as someone who commented on my op-ed, I felt you should know the rest of the story.

Here's the part that got cut off:

"Seriously considering does not, however, amount to leaving. One final calculation served as the catalyst that tipped the scales – the calculation of the worth of my integrity. I knew that, however torturous the battle I could wage to turn back the clock, my decay as an elected official was inevitable. Even if this downward slide were as impalpable as a reduction of my weekly bill output from three to two, the ramifications thereof would conflict with the rigorous standards I had set out for myself when I first ascended to Senate. 199% effort, in my book of values, is a deficit. My resignation was hence a prudentialist calculation intended to bring a fresh new face into the Senate in my stead and to leave the Association with a clean bill of health.



Remaining a member of the Senate would have been the easy way out. Conversely, my decision to resign came at an incalculable personal cost and a still more indescribable loss to all those whom I sought to represent. But it was the only moral decision I was in a position to make; I bade my goodbye with my integrity intact.



I bear no ill will towards anyone in the party. My disagreements are of a political nature and fall short of transcending my personal ties. Neither do I doubt the state of the Association, which resoundingly remains in the stellar hands of the officials whom I leave. Though I am unlikely to ever reenter student politics, I wholeheartedly pledge to continue my advocacy on behalf of my fellow students in a sundry other ways."

-Igor
 

Does he always talk like this?