<p>
</p>
<p>It is naive to look at the explicit statements of officials on any side and believe them without condition. Really, how experienced are you with politics and university development?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, of course not - I just think it’s hypocritical to decide that Cornell was “wiped out any clear advantage” when it partnered with the Technion, yet when Stanford partnered with CCNY, “the impact was negligible.” You Cornell supporters claim that we are “picking on” Cornell because it isn’t prestigious, yet you make claims like the above. Do you not see this disparity?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s because I have the perspicacity not to be naive about these sorts of political involvements. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not. I’ve stated many times that I take every official’s statement with a grain of salt, yet you still cling to this. When will you actually *read *what I’m writing?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no narrative to be re-written. That’s because the uncertainty of the events meant no narrative could be constructed reliably. As I’ve said time and time again, what we do know - based on the articles and such - is that the course of events is largely open to interpretation. As a result, there’s truth to both sides of this argument. You’re the one who’s unwilling to admit that there’s any truth to points that disagree with yours; you and applejack (among others) prefer to believe only in those conclusions that coincide with your own. I and others have conceded many of your claims regarding the superiority of Cornell in this, yet you still don’t give up.</p>
<p>Then you state you’re finally leaving, going back into your hole, leaving the Stanford forum, and not ■■■■■■■■ anymore. Then you reply again. Really, can we get an ETA on when we can be rid of you?</p>