So, although as a previous editor, I certainly don't represent the Garg, neither can the author of that joke. I know this is all very confusing, but, believe me, it does have its advantages.
So why am I writing this note? Well, I certainly wouldn't be writing it if I thought our little jab at you was amusing or EVEN MADE ANY SENSE AT ALL. Because deep down I think rivalries between campus publications can be a lot of fun. Why, when I was a freshman here, the Daily stank! They were so absurdly "liberal" that they used the word "pigs" to refer to the police in news stories! And they bashed Israel every single day. Oh boy, they were sure PC for an organization in which a handicapped person could never even make it up the stairs to the newsroom! That's why you guys came about in the first place, as a response. And it was great. You made fun of them, we make fun of them and you. They made fun of you and us.
All-in-all, there was a lot of fun going around. Then came apathy. They daily moved to the center, or rather just became apolitical, and then you had to move to the left a bit as well. Then the daily actually got pretty good. And we just got stupid. True, it was a great, funny kind of stupid, we were producing some of the best comedy in the history of campus humor (and still are, with exceptions which include the little jab at you) but we pretty mush stopped making fun of the boring campus (because who would want to?)
So perhaps that little "shot at the review" in our last issue, was created with those old rivalries in mind. It was a ghost of a different age. Like a ghost it lacked substance and, like a ghost, it wasn't funny.