<p>Hahahahahahahahaha. Dude Columbia doesn't give out "football scholarships." Hahahahahahaha.</p>
<p>man...**** u</p>
<p>LOL! Hahaa..</p>
<p>If you wanna check out a small % of girls going to Columbia/Barnard, go check out the myspace groups.. you'll get a sense that the girls are pretty hot.
But umm.. these things aren't always accurate as (this is what I'm guessing) the attractive girls don't mind flaunting it on myspace... whilst the "cool" (hot?!) guys don't usually go on internet sites like that...
In reality, I'm sure there'll be a mixture of both guys and girls that are hot.. and well, not so hot..</p>
<p>haha, i'm on the myspace group. but, meh. i fear ive set myself up for this extremely hot expectation that is impossible because the other girls in that group are much hotter than me....but anyway, if you're on myspace, you can see some bad pictures of me. my username is 'sadia' because i'm super original.</p>
<p>dude, this thread is so ridiculous.</p>
<p>ew, I'm a xanga person</p>
<p>haha! oh man guys. this will be an interesting four years...</p>
<p>(shut up sadia you're hot.)</p>
<p>You guys crack me up lol!!</p>
<p>hey hey hey now what's wrong with yale</p>
<p>Yale Rumpus 50 most beautiful people HAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!</p>
<p>alright, seeing as how no guy posted a pic, i guess that's the end of that. you get my point now. :)
but yeah, i finally uploaded a single picture, so feel free to post and i'll exchange. but i refuse to whore my photo out to the masses - i'm a monogamous photo whore.</p>
<p>pigeonblood wrote: "You shallow, stupid idiots."</p>
<p>The term "shallow" is problematic because although, technically, it implies looking only at the surface, it presupposes (especially in this context) that the surface is uninteresting.</p>
<p>What's wrong with admiring lovely forms? Certainly there are many layers to beauty, but is someone wrong for admiring "only" the sounds of a symphony without considering its deeper meaning? Is someone "shallow" or "stupid" for admiring a Pollock without understanding the intellectual themes behind his paintings?</p>
<p>Of course, one could argue that true appreciation comes only from admiring all aspects of beauty, but to argue that one is a "stupid idiot" for being concerned with the outward appearance of things is, well, stupid.</p>
<p>Achilleus said exactly what i was trying to say, but in a much smarter, well-worded manner</p>
<p>this is one of the rare moments in my life where i can say... "that kid is definitely smarter than me."</p>
<p>ive got tons of pics and i ain't afraid to use them</p>
<p>im also a guy, so please, only female inquiries</p>
<p>just hit me up with a private message if you wanna see the goods haha</p>
<p><is someone="" "shallow"="" or="" "stupid"="" for="" admiring="" a="" pollock="" without="" understanding="" the="" intellectual="" themes="" behind="" his="" paintings?=""></is></p>
<p>This might just be me, but I think anyone who sees aesthetic as opposed to symbolic value in a Pollack might be a few handfuls of paint short of a can ;)</p>
<p>they all look the same to me - but that might be because i'm blind.</p>
<p>there i go, lying again - i only do it to uphold this little repartee we're having</p>
<p>abcde...</p>
<p>If you can seperate the aesthetic from the symbolic, then you're twice the human I am. The two, in my opinion and (I admit) limited experience are one in the same.</p>
<p>True enough Achilleus, though one might arguably be fairly termed "shallow" if one were to perceive only aesthetic value in a work whose primary purpose is symbolic. That is a separation that is perhaps easier to achieve than the reverse, and not necessarily a negative one at that. I would submit that shallowness with regard to Pollack might define the best way in which to approach his work; i.e. with brevity!</p>
<p>stop being deep, this is a "shallow and stupid" conversation about chicks at columbia!</p>
<p>No, DAMNIT! THIS IS A POST ABOUT THE GUYS!!!!</p>
<p>Sorry, I'm really trying much to hard to be counter culture.</p>