That would be a very loose definition of false deposit or double deposit indeed!! Especially since, in the case of Ivy level and many other excellent schools, the odds of getting in off the wait list are zero to very, very low. But it is rather moot other than for the semantic confusion it causes since they are correct in saying it is acceptable.
You might be right about the OP’s reference, but my challenge stands.
I would submit that such a biased presentation of the issue belies any interest in hearing what people really have to say. Someone truly fair and curious would have presented the issue neutrally, not with such slanted and loaded terminology.
BTW, not addressing counterarguments is not being polite. It is throwing a bomb and then just watching, as opposed to engaging. If you are not going to defend your position or admit you were wrong, there is little sense in this.
@PhotographerMom: Who would qualify your definition of “someone (anyone) familiar with BS”? I guess at least you would. So why don’t you enlighten us the ignorant?
@fallenchemist - That’s completely unfair. I ran this topic/thread by a Moderator and I stayed within the guidelines. If you would like to see the private discussion with the Moderator, I’ll happily share it with you via PM.
You ( and others ) set the tone and derailed this thread.
@panpacific- I have no interest.
Close the thread.
Sure, PM the discussion to me. Closing the thread per your request.
I will point out that I defended your right to post this hypothetical despite the particulars of a real situation you were involved in. But if you don’t think a phrase like “compromise your ethics” and words like “ditching” in reference to this situation are not setting the tone and are very prejudicial, I think you are kidding yourself. Also, it was not close to derailed. Every comment addressed the hypothetical. The fact that the hypothetical had a biased premise from the start is totally on topic.