Anyone know how many have already picked? I haven't been bumped yet but I'm worried...I don't want to piss somebody else off by bumping them in turn, but mostly I don't want to have to pick another room.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - motheroftaurasi
Dozens and dozens of other URMs applied to Harvard and were rejected because they didn't present as compelling an application as accepted URMs did. Race was not the determining factor. The facts disprove that argument. It was almost certainly a factor, yes. But if it were literally the determining factor, every URM would get in. The reason you're making this error is because you're totally focused on the plight of white applicants with similar numbers--understandable, if you are one. But that doesn't mean your argument is correct.
Unless you somehow had access to the Harvard Admissions Office the day they considered Lacoste's application, I have to call bullsh*t. I talked with him for ten minutes on another board and was deeply impressed. I don't see why a Harvard admissions officer couldn't come away with the same impression. It's within reason to argue that race was a factor, but saying that it must have been the deciding factor is flat-out wrong.
Not just with acceptances, but with decisions...nobody has received a decision from Georgetown on LSN since 4/16, and the number of pendings that are left could be chalked up to abandoned accounts. Anybody know what the deal is with this?
(My online status check says complete.)
"was trying to be more conciliatory" would be more accurate. And yes, I get a little passionate in my defense of Duke. That can happen with things you love.
This is 100% credited.
Unbelievable. You truly don't know how to read. The "simply because he was a Duke student" referred to why he was attacked. Yes, there were a lot of commas, and I know that's difficult for people who read at a 2nd-grade level, but no reasonable, literate person would read it any other way.
, with surprise, shock, horror, or hell, even mild disapproval, your reaction was essentially to say, "It wasn't as bad as you make it out to be" and make a crack about reading comprehension.
When I wrote the above, I was referring to the following exchange:
2) I find it odd that the article you cite only noted one incident -- and suggests that the other fears are overblown: "Friday evening, Durham Police Department officers notified the residents of houses along N. Buchanan Boulevard that there were unsubstantiated threats of gang-related violence targeted at Duke students....that the rumors of violence originated from the magistrate's office, but he added that they could not be traced to a credible source."
This is what infuriates me. Not once did you address the impact of a student being assaulted. Instead, you joke about a mistake I made in the details of the attack, and move on without acknowledging it at all beyond that.
I wasn't talking about any of this.
Here's the point: if you, at any point, expressed sympathy or surprise or shock or mild disapproval that a Duke student had been assaulted simply because he was a Duke student, please show that to me. Or hell, just TELL me that you feel any of those things, because that's what pissing me off.
(I also don't get the point of the story about the burglar. Are you saying that, in your opinion, judges sometimes err?
Um...what is the relevance of this to your self-appropriation of the authority to judge who is winning an argument?
I'm sorry, but I really can't handle talking with you this way anymore. If at some point you'd like to get together for coffee and talk about this, that'd be fine. But your consistent failure to understand what I'm saying due to basic problems of English literacy makes it impossible for me to talk calmly with you.
This is not terribly complicated. Instead of responding to the report that a student was assaulted because of the allegation of rape, simply because he was a Duke student, with surprise, shock, horror, or hell, even mild disapproval, your reaction was essentially to say, "It wasn't as bad as you make it out to be" and make a crack about reading comprehension.
(I also don't get the point of the story about the burglar. Are you saying that, in your opinion, judges sometimes err? Be that as it may, in America, the country where we live, independent judges still decide winners and losers of arguments, not you. Although maybe--God help us--you'll become one someday, and then you can say with authority who's winning and who's losing. Until then, you just sound stupid. And if you meant something else, then you'd better explain.)
Who is Scott?
No, I haven't been here very long, and yes, I know he didn't disagree entirely.
You keep alluding to this idea that I was doing things because my argument wasn't holding up, or was being "decimated" by you, or I was "losing." I'm not going to debate this with you, because I think it's stupid for people involved in arguments on online message boards to say whether their side is winning or losing. That's why we have independent judges and juries to decide real arguments--the arguer's opinion on whether he's winning or losing doesn't matter.
We don't differ substantially, okay? I think she's lying, you think I shouldn't make that conclusion just yet, and I can respect that view. When we came to petty insults it was as a result of your misreading of one of my posts, which was partially or entirely due to the fact that I delete quotes to make the posts look neater. Fine. I can let that go, because I accept your general view.
I can't, however, let go this idea you seem to have that this hasn't or won't hurt Duke immeasurably. I can't believe you would nitpick over exactly what happened at the drive-thru incident--for me, as someone who's been to that drive-thru dozens of times, it's unimaginable that someone would walk up and punch me in the head because of this rape allegation. For you to trivialize it, or say, "he was punched in the head, not bashed against the car, stop exaggerating!" just rubs me the wrong way. Do you see why that is? I know you're concerned about the accuser, and I try to refrain from trivializing her (you may have noticed that I consisently call her "the woman" or "the accuser" rather than "the stripper", "the liar" or "the whore"), so I'd hope that you would refrain from trivializing the pain the other side is going through.