<p>why can't CC ppl talk in normal language, these posts are like philosophy argument....</p>
<p>its ridiculous, how ppl try to elevate themselves through rhetoric</p>
<p>i am fully capable of understanding these posts but its just annoying</p>
<p>I apologize to those who wasted their time reading through the ad hominem attacks exchanged. I should have taken the high road from the beginning, but as many of you probably know, it can be difficult when someone condescends to you and calls you inferior.</p>
<p>
[quote]
puerile
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I like that word.</p>
<p>bball87,</p>
<p>Personally, I don't feel that disclosing the PM in this case defeated any purpose. It actually had a purpose, a worthwhile one, to reveal that nspeds degrades others while attempting to shield himself from any fair criticism. Remember, this is the internet, and he voluntarily gave up his personal information and subsequently proceeded to elevate himself above others--actions like these rarely go unnoticed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I overestimated how much people would care. However, I still think its relevant that someone who posts very often (over 5 posts a day) seems to have no qualms about lying....just thought it was relevant for others who may read his posts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I agree with you. It does matter that he lied, and it makes me wonder why other people don't seem to care that much. Imagine an acceptance/rejection thread where people write their supposedly real stats but lie about the decisions they received. How much good would that be? I realize that this is an extreme example, but I think that it shows how useless these boards would be without honesty.</p>
<p>Anyway, the brown rejection must have bruised nspeds pretty badly...</p>
<p>On the other hand, I don't mean to cause further aggravation... Just thought I'd weigh in with my opinion, which seemed necessary since the debate was very one-sided.</p>
<p>why does it mattter if he deceived someone, he always provides correct info, not once has his info ever been deliberately wrong</p>
<p>if he wished not to disclose he applied to Brown, so be it, his info was correct though....give him the benefit of the doubt</p>
<p>i appreciate anyone that can offer insight in the process, and he is very knowledgable it seems, he got into gtown last year</p>
<p>peace</p>
<p>No, I agree with you. It does matter that he lied, and it makes me wonder why other people don't seem to care that much. Imagine an acceptance/rejection thread where people write their supposedly real stats but lie about the decisions they received. How much good would that be? I realize that this is an extreme example, but I think that it shows how useless these boards would be without honesty.</p>
<p>Anyway, the brown rejection must have bruised nspeds pretty badly...</p>
<p>my friend lied about his SAT by not 50 pts, not 100 pts, 120 pts....</p>
<p>i was kinda upset when i found out, b/c he was a good friend</p>
<p>the kid says he got a 1500, and really got a 1380, that is just messed up</p>
<p>
[quote]
On the other hand, I don't mean to cause further aggravation... Just thought I'd weigh in with my opinion, which seemed necessary since the debate was very one-sided.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not really. From your post and Lethe's, it seems as if the only real reason for appreciating the breach of privacy was for self-aggrandizement. Nothing further.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Imagine an acceptance/rejection thread where people write their supposedly real stats but lie about the decisions they received. How much good would that be? I realize that this is an extreme example, but I think that it shows how useless these boards would be without honesty
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A poor analogy; recall that I never said I was accepted, which I could easily have done.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyway, the brown rejection must have bruised nspeds pretty badly...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not really. Given the projected numbers for this year, I was not surprised.</p>
<p>...and I am at Georgetown, anyways. Brown is not really a shift upwards for me... at least not in terms of academics.</p>
<p>I'm sorry tube, I just simply find the idea of posting anything from a private message on the public board disgusting. I have a vested interest in keeping the information I disclose through private messages, well, private. I know I have helped several posters here significantly through the use of this feature, and I would be aghast if any of them posted personal details I consciously decided not to disclose to the public. I have also been helped considerably through the private messaging on these boards, and I cannot even countenance posting any of the information disclosed therein. I think it is a disrespectable practice, and one that should be condemned vehemently and categorically. </p>
<p>The claim, that Magnanimous was aiming solely at bestowing the Truth upon the CC community is eminently questionable. It seems to me that the information revealed was trivial, and that its revelation did very little but attack nsped's character. Clearly, tube, you dislike nspeds, and it seems to me that this has colored your reaction to this argument. Even if nspeds is an arrogant nuisance, the end of shaming him seems to me entirely undermined by the means.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Remember, this is the internet, and he voluntarily gave up his personal information and subsequently proceeded to elevate himself above others--actions like these rarely go unnoticed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It seems like you are just trying to justify revenge. </p>
<p>So it seems as if my derisions were not puerile. They actually had an effect on you.</p>
<p>Good to know, good to know.</p>
<p>Calipharius, I respect your intelligently stated point. Perhaps the information I posted was trivial, but in that case the confidential info I received was also trivial, in which case the sanctity of PM's was not violated. Your example is different because you seem to be talking about PM's with people you knew, nspeds revealed this info very quickly without knowing me. Regardless, I think many could have figured out by themselves that someone who spoke to an admissions dean likely was also an applicant to Brown, thus I don't think many people could have been fooled by nsped's claim that he didn't apply in the first place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Calipharius, I respect your intelligently stated point. Perhaps the information I posted was trivial, but in that case the confidential info I received was also trivial, in which case the sanctity of PM's was not violated. Your example is different because you seem to be talking about PM's with people you knew, nspeds revealed this info very quickly without knowing me. Regardless, I think many could have figured out by themselves that someone who spoke to an admissions dean likely was also an applicant to Brown, thus I don't think many people could have been fooled by nsped's claim that he didn't apply in the first place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>REMARKS EDITED BY COLLEGEMOM</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps the information I posted was trivial, but in that case the confidential info I received was also trivial, in which case the sanctity of PM's was not violated.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That "sancitity of PM's" does not depend on how important their content is, and even if it does, the determination of their importance is at the very least obtained through mutual agreement between the parties involved in that message.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your example is different because you seem to be talking about PM's with people you knew, nspeds revealed this info very quickly without knowing me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what you are essentially saying is that I should not have trusted you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
, thus I don't think many people could have been fooled by nsped's claim that he didn't apply in the first place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thus defeating the purpose of exposing the private message; I am assuming the purpose was not to insult me.</p>
<p>actually intranet is a closed network ala a LAN.</p>
<p>And I don't think nspeds deserves this, especially since he disclosed useful information - no matter how disheartening... sigh.</p>
<p>Eh, I just disagree. I think that "the sanctity of PM's was" violated. </p>
<p>It was foolish of nspeds to divulge this information to you.<br>
It was dishonest of you to tell the whole world.</p>
<p>I think it was wrong, full-stop. I also think that it quite clearly changes how I view private messaging here. I do not think it is idle-speculation to think that many people now will have **serious reservations[b/] about revealing private information that is potentially very helpful to other posters.</p>
<p>Hahah, I think Matm1 is actually too right. (There, I did the bolding right this time.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Eh, I just disagree. I think that "the sanctity of PM's was" violated. </p>
<p>It was foolish of nspeds to divulge this information to you.
It was dishonest of you to tell the whole world.</p>
<p>I think it was wrong, full-stop. I also think that it quite clearly changes how I view private messaging here. I do not think it is idle-speculation to think that many people now will have **serious reservations[b/] about revealing private information that is potentially very helpful to other posters.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fair enough. I felt like this was an exception because of the character I was dealing with. If my post has the effect in the future that you believe it will, then I apologize for my foolishness.</p>
<p>Man, German pop music is so awesome...</p>
<p>
[quote]
M</p>
<p>Omg Thank You So Much. I Love You All. Im High As Balls Right Now And I Just Read This Entire Thread To Everyone In My Common Room. Im Honestly Starting To Think That This Is Not A Joke And This Thread Is For Realz. This Shat Is Bonkas. Bonkas. Bonkas. Haha, You Guys Made My Night. Penguinssss Peeenguins. Penguins.</p>