<p>Interesting theory crimsonbulldog. They certainly both make outrageous posts of similar sorts. My only problem with that theory is that Byerly actually provides useful information occasionally, particularly with regard to admissions statistics.</p>
<p>Of course, but this sort of reverse-psychology subterfuge would work out quite well for those trying to deride other colleges.</p>
<p>What are we to make of the self-proclaimed “crimsonbulldog” who tries to give the impression that he is “above it all” - although, in his own way, he is just as dogmatic and inflexible in his allegiance to his alma mater, Yale, and in his hatred of all things “crimson,” as the silly Yalie ■■■■■ (ie, “poster X”) is to New Haven vs. Cambridge.</p>
<p>While spinning conspiracy theories, are we entitled to suspect that “crimsonbulldog”, “Poster X”, “Alumother” and “fscottie” are all fronts I created to make Yale or Princeton look bad because of their embarrassing, excessive boosterism?</p>
<p>I DO agree that the “poster X” personna strains credulity, but the same guy has been holding forth in this fashion for about 7 or eight years now, on this site and on another whose name we dare not speak!</p>
<p>I for one can assert that I am not a front for some bizarro reverse-psychology campaign against Stanford.</p>
<p>That being said, I don’t think PosterX has BEEN to New Haven around the older Yale colleges recently. I don’t see it rolling in the wealth of Palo Alto or Cambridge by any means.</p>
<p>fscottie and alumother are credits to Princeton</p>
<p>Determined ■■■■■■ both. As are you. As am I. We are all extremely meritorious.</p>
<p>Are you excluding me from the “■■■■■” talk, Byerly? </p>
<p>This is an inadvertent compliment!</p>
<p>You strike me as someone who wishes he was somewhere else.</p>
<p>Preposterous.</p>