Hey there, it’s me. Again. Here to talk about faculty tings and whatnot.

Before I start, let me say a few things;

1. There is a big misconception that the article called some students ugly, I will like to say that was not the case. Only outfits were referred to.  

2. It was very wrong to use phrases like “downright ugly”. Even if the intended meaning was lost in translation, it is not the kind of thing you say to human beings.

3. Sample opinions were taken by regular students from regular students (Yes! The dreaded fashion police is probably someone beside you. Turn to your neighbor and say-).

4. You people were warned. As in, there was a caveat/warning/disclaimer that informed you of the potentially upsetting content. But you were stubborn, and now everyone is crying. Ugh.

And now, to the message proper:

Firstly, I am a hypocrite. If any of my friends had been included in the “downright ugly” or “almost there” categories, I would probably not write this article. Instead, I will be looking for ways to tell the blog committee members that their article was trash and should be binned. But none of my friends dressed poorly. In fact, they were in the “groovy” list (this is me telling Boma for the umpteenth time that she looked great), so here I am, writing from a position of privilege; admitting it, but not hating it because of the objectivity it affords me. Heyah.

Secondly, I know nothing about fashion. Style, necklines and color combinations are all foreign languages to me. But I know people, and people were upset yesterday about a lot of things. The reactions to The LSS fashion police list of best and poorly dressed people at the Law Dinner was filled with a lot of bias, bitterness, amusement and defensiveness; the whole package. I don’t blame them; the joke is never funny when you are the butt of it. And while it is true that people are expected to react/deal with things however they want, it does not mean that these reactions are not funny. So, without further ado, let us look at the various categories:

1. TEAM BIAS: Our first contestants today are the members of team bias. Wearing suits and ties, they are here to posit and assert vehemently that the writer(s) of the article is a friend to most of the people who were treated favorably. With well connected threads of thought they have showed us why “cliques” and friendships played a large part in the awarding process. The members of team bias are utterly flabbergasted and bamboozled by the way the writer gave out “10/10” to so many people. They stand before this honorable court to state that the fashion police have been extra-judicial in their conduct, and alleging foul play and corruption as well as a lack of due process.


2. TEAM JOAN RIVERS: Some of us were only upset because the writer of the article did not really attack the fashion point well. He/she did not really explain why the dresses were bad or why they were wrong. Team Joan Rivers contends that the article was not bad because of bias, but because the writer does not understand the theme of the dinner and this lack of knowledge renders the entire piece flawed. This team pleads that the fashion police with their apparent ignorance do not have locus standi to give out marks.


3. TEAM CONSIDERATE: Next up are the considerate army. This team probably has the most legitimate argument. They are here to argue that the article is too insensitive and can be a burden on the mental health of our colleagues. It condemns the use of phrases like “downright ugly” and challenges the writer to do better as a human being. Another argument of team considerate is that people spent money on their outfits and thus should not be made fun of after spending plenty cash. Um- okay. Sure.


4. TEAM CHAOS: Your Lordship, Team Chaos believes that the article in question was very mild and not as scathing as it could have been. As a matter of fact, Team Chaos thinks that the writer of the article should have followed in the footsteps of their predecessors last year and applied more venom. Team Chaos thinks that all the other contestants are crybabies who need to grow up.


5. TEAM BITTERNESS: Finally, we have team bitterness. These ones have no business except using every faculty event or topic to send subliminal messages and air their grievances with other people. Team bitterness always uses the other teams as cover to carry out their activities and posit their positions. We do not know why team bitterness does this, but we have subconsciously accepted their presence. Keep on sending those messages, big man. We see you. We know you and your time is coming. Oh sh**, this sounds like a subliminal too.


Ladies and gentlemen, I believe if you look closely, you will find a group you belong to. I am not judging you sha. By all means, embrace your ideology and stick to it, even if it is number 5. I am not judging the writer of the article either; reviews can be tricky, and it is impossible to please everyone. However, we are humans with different psyches and temperaments who receive and process information in various ways. Various people have been hurt by this and the reasons for this are obvious. Words are powerful, and phrases like “downright ugly” definitely pack a punch. In case of next time sha.

And to the rest of us who believe that some people with stunning outfits were skipped because of whatever reason, I present the COMPREHENSIVE, ORNAMENTAL, MAGNIFICIENT, MAJESTIC, ENIGMATIC, TENACIOUS and STUPENDOUS awards (also known as the COMMENTS). So, leave a comment and tell me who you will rather have in your groovy list. I’ll start;

1. Lase (a babe);

2. Sike (the coolest);

3. Seyi (wow);

4. Boma (yes, again);

5. The guy with blue socks (lol, na play abeg).

Inshort, the watermelon fries. Until next time, drink alcohol, poke your nose in everyone’s business and listen to Soapy.

Signed: Oluchukwu Babyy.

And now, a Press Release from the LSS Blog Team:

Firstly, feelings were hurt by the use of the phrase downright ugly but we’d like to emphatically state that nobody’s physical appearance was being referred to, two people were under that category and we referred strictly to the outfit. However, we’ve gotten complaints that the phrase was too harsh to be used and we apologize to the featured parties. The category name has been corrected even if the world has seen it, your feelings matter and we saw the need to change it. Once again, we apologize and thank you for reading our blog.

Secondly, more opinions were sampled for the best dressed section so here’s an updated list and clearer pictures from yesterday’s post.

We apologize if your candidate is not here but the whole faculty of law can’t make it to this list.

If this isn’t a gorgeous dress to wear to the Casino Royale, then we don’t know what it is. Rumors have it that this woman currently owns a yacht in iceland and is a popular money – making gambling mogul. Its also heard that due to the fact that this madam is immensely rich she can’t afford to walk the grounds that we walk on. According to findings, this High Net Worth Individual is said to posses ten customized private jets of her own and more. This is a perfect dress. Oh and those thighs. Perfect. 10/10 ma. We agree with everyone.

One line. Red looks absolutely resplendent on you and you had the madass shape to fit this beautifully sewn gown.

Black and shine. The pattern was the highlight of this dress. The slit was just wonderful. You kept is simple and glorious.

From Makinwa’s Google drive, looks like The Law Men who looked good at the Casino Royale didn’t struggle with the masses to take pictures and so we have these few, from our very own Social Sec who slayed it and our popular hypeman Zik Manny who slayed the look (however, these shades).

We won’t lie, we’ve said it before, James Bond’s suit and shoes here looks like a bag of money. It was fitted and looked good. Our major problem was the shades and hair but well, that’s our problem.

Black and beautiful. You kept it simple and still managed to drip hot. We want to believe you’re the definition of opor.

Clearer versions of some Billionaires wives in their dresses.

Some Lit Group Pictures

That’s all from the Blog Team. Success in your forthcoming examinations.


  1. Whosoever is in charge of this blog really has his way with words kudos to you but a little bit of euphemism would make this a lot better. No need for harsh comments


  2. Joshua, nice attempt at salvaging the situation caused by the savages who thought being savage was sophisticated. Grammatically and content wise, this was a better review of the previous article. it is just sad that the quality of the blog has gotten to the point where we have to review a review to get the writers view. Nice of you not to be a duck about it. (Oh you are a guy so I should have said drake).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s