<p>Feel free to follow their lead. I mean; who cares?</p>
<p>This isn’t a discussion on the pros and cons of anonymous online discussion. Everyone is aware that with online anonymity speech is much less restrained and more “in your face”. This isn’t anything new. You seem to be working under the assumption that it should be the equivalent of face-to-face discussion when in reality it is its own beast.</p>
<p>YES, people do interact with less consideration than in real life. They also spin stories, make up stories, or mention being CEOs when it has nada to do with the conversation t hand in attempts to gain gravitas. That’s just the way the web works.</p>
<p>And everyone here has generally been polite. Curt, abrasive at times, yes but that’s on both parts (I seem to remember your bright young OP calling a poster an idiot for simply giving him his opinion).</p>
<ul>
<li>And no, we wouldn’t be talking this way in real life. Isn’t the web awesome? :)</li>
</ul>
<p>undisclosed, I appreciate your response. I acknowledge it’s an age gap, but I (and my age peers) tend not to write anything, even on an anonymous website, that we would not be willing to say face-to-face. On behalf of my age peers, it is fair to say that we deeply regret the “dumbing down” of communication brought about by email, Facebook, messaging, etc. Typos, no initial caps, statements made behind the anonymous curtain, etc. We believe that the bifurcation of “communication while at work” vs. “everything else” is insidiously destructive. But it is not our world emerging. It is yours. (By the way, I respect your respect for my old-school views regarding initial caps…)</p>
<p>I also understand the spinning of yarns through the anonymous internet. Perhaps Columbia2002 is a Machiavellian Yale (or CUNY) alum? And I’m a legal secretary? (By the way, the CEO comment was not about gravitas, it was about hard knocks, and in these times, I feel them.)</p>
<p>Finally, let me just say I have a different definition of “politeness.” But I also enjoy reading these threads!</p>
<p>I think some people in this forum need to know that every single application has something unique because it comes from a unique person, therefore even if acceptance has an erratic character, that does not necessarily imply its remoteness. I cant understand how can some people haphazardly declare somebody`s rejection? Since there is no official member of any college and especially of Columbia right here, I think every opinion is rumored. A college decision is not made up routinely, that does change every time! So please even if your opinion about its admission to CU is an absolute niet, there is an intellectual dogma that requires at least a small reserve from you in your responses.
Stanford09, I do not know whether you will be accepted or not but, my opinion is not to regret anything and that Columbia admission committee is probably made up of wise seniors who have an objective vision of each part of the application and its meaning. I myself applied to Columbia and believe me, my application is a way below yours if we only refer to your SAT or whatever else.
I wish you the best of luck and do remember that If there is a will, there is a way!</p>
<p>This is what one would call BS. Plain and simple. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. You’re trying to sound smart, too. But half of your sentences border on incoherency.</p>
<p>What is your point? I interpret your post as saying that OP should wait until April to find out what the Columbia adcom actually decides because nobody knows for sure what they will decide. Okay, if that’s your point, big f’ing deal. That’s a “duh” point. And I’m not sure what that has to do with OP’s question about whether people think something he did would hurt or help his application – and the tons of responses it has triggered.</p>
<p>I think posts 58 and 59 sum it up pretty well. In short, I dispute the premise of your question: I do not believe that a potentially great Columbia alum would is someone who would be put off my one of posts and decide not to apply. So I don’t think it’s necessary for me to answer the question as you’ve posed it.</p>
<p>Your responses are too monotonous Columbia2002. Do not get defensive when people treat you like you treat other. are you a Columbia alum? If so, I think you must reconsider yourself and your wy of thinking. I think you belong to those who are feel very mean while logging on CC and want to discard it over “Immaculate kids with dream” . If you are trying to play the PHd while making an sarcastic note saying that I was trying to sound smart but blurred my point, I think this represented a very weak behavior. I don’t care about what do you think about what I said above however according to your interpretation, you sound like rejecting what is ineluctably the truth. My opinion is definitely set about his decent chance like everybody<code>s one and please don</code>t impose your upside down interpretations of his question to entice to figure smarter. I will refuse to play such a stupid and useless game of debating about something more obvious than ever, like it or not this kid can get into YOUR CUDDLY SCHOOL and without standing for any disapproval interpretations of his SAT justification. That might not represent a flaw in any way! His chance are not remote! I outta here!</p>
<p>Jesus Christ dude. How is it that you feel free to critique other members’ “way of thinking” when you haven’t said one substantive thing in (to my knowledge) any of your posts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m going to take C02’s advice here.</p>
<p>You are wrong because every single applicant (except perhaps legacies and recruited atheletes) has a poor chance at acceptance. However, it is well documented that applicants’ chances at acceptance go up with their SAT scores.</p>
