<p>Shrinkwrap: Sure there are trolls. However, a very quick check of other posts made by the poster in question do not indicate a ‘■■■■■’ personality. However, calling someone a ■■■■■ is often an effective way of silencing a unpopular opinion. It seems that the best way to respond to a true ■■■■■ is to not grant a response or any interaction.</p>
<p>Also, we are all responsible for our own emotional responses and the posts/poster in question are most certainly on the topic of this thread. In addition, the response that ‘no one finds you relevant’ is in itself rather pompous and self aggrandizing.</p>
<p>"a very quick check of other posts made by the poster in question do not indicate a ‘■■■■■’ personality. "</p>
<p>Well I can’t disagree with that. ■■■■■ was not not the first thing that came to mind. </p>
<p>"It seems that the best way to respond to a true ■■■■■ is to not grant a response or any interaction. "</p>
<p>Can’t disagree with that either.</p>
<p>
This is a message board. The moderators can and do silence people for violating the terms of service. There is nothing “evil” about it. People do not have absolute free speech to post on any medium they desire. That’s absurd.</p>
<p>In fact, there have already been a couple of specifically political posts on this thread unrelated to college admissions. I can’t recall who posted them and I’m not about to look through here, but those are explicitly against the TOS. It is entirely up to the discretion of the moderators whether or not to allow someone the privilege of posting on this particular internet site.</p>
<p>Bovertine; you are absolutely correct in your assessment of what may and may not be posted on THIS site. The quote which I presented addresses the philosophy of silencing opinions in general. The posts to which I was referring have not been banned/removed and that seems to be of concern. Part of what is currently under discussion in our household is how to find a college environment which DOES allow a free exchange of ideas, within the confines of common courtesy and manners but which may by their simple topic be emotional and oh horror of horrors - outside of PC code speech constraints. And, an environment where a dissenting idea and the idea’s holder is not shouted into silence. It is not an easy task.</p>
<p>
Nobody is suggesting silencing anyone “in general.” So I’m not sure what the relevance of your quote was. Except that it is certainly the right of any poster to suggest another poster is offering nothing of value and should go away. I believe that falls under free speech as well.</p>
<p>Bovertine: True, it falls under free speech. However, stating NO ONE is interested in what another has to say is pompous.</p>
<p>
I guess one person’s pomposity is another’s collquial hyperbole.</p>
<p>I thank ohiobassmom for posting this article:</p>
<p>[Affirmative</a> action and the real enemy of education equality | Gary Younge | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk](<a href=“Affirmative action and the real enemy of education equality | Gary Younge | The Guardian”>Affirmative action and the real enemy of education equality | Gary Younge | The Guardian)</p>
<p>What Mr. Younge has failed to mention is how brilliantly one interest group is being set against another: ORM against URM, schmucks against URM, schmucks against schmucks who walked on water etc. They even tried to set descendants of slaves against descendants of immigrants…</p>
<p>Then again, there is nothing new here really; I have been saying the same thing for years, have I not? Divide and conquer works if thought through carefully.</p>
<p>I wonder if people thought I was a ■■■■■ then…</p>
<p>"I have been saying the same thing for years, have I not? Divide and conquer works if thought through carefully.</p>
<p>I wonder if people thought I was a ■■■■■ then…"</p>
<p>I don’t know how many accusations of “■■■■■■■■” are legit, but I DO know there are posts that read like dialogue, some that read like debate, and some that read like the primary intent is " provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."</p>
<p>“Dialogue vs. debate”
<a href=“http://www.nald.ca/library/learning/study/scdvd.htm[/url]”>http://www.nald.ca/library/learning/study/scdvd.htm</a></p>
<p>I love you comments! So true!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, should an applicant who comes from a poor household be expected to have a higher GPA and SAT score for admission? Should a job applicant have a higher level of education for the same job as an applicant from a rich household or expect to be paid less for the same job? After all, they should take a look at where they came from blah blah blah … There are ethical problems with such arguments. These seem like childish arguments from a middle school playground.</p>