<p>Do read the sentence that you so carefully copied. The sentence does not say 'he is a public servant.' It says he is seen as a public servant. The nuance here is image. </p>
<p>Columbia 2002, male or female, you and your postings exhibit neither insight, nor leadership qualities, nor the insightful articulation one would hope to acquire at Columbia.</p>
<p>I think it is so important to stress that Columbia 2002 is not indicative of the quality of students at Columbia nor of the demeanor of most students.</p>
<p>With regard to the cancellation of the visit of the President of Iraq Columbia 2002 challenged the issue of logistical reasons as provided by PrezBo:</p>
<p>“Yeah right. I wonder if those "logistical reasons" included irate calls to Lee's direct line by bigwig donors/trustees.”</p>
<p>As you will recall his safety could not be guaranteed.</p>
<p>Now when protesting was an issue Columbia 2002 claims:</p>
<p>“I think this is much more than an isolated incident by a few kooks -- this is something that happens time and time again that the administration silently tolerates.”</p>
<p>What is in fact typical is that this limited insight is reflective of knee jerk reactions and a lack of understanding of the realities associated with the management of a complex institution.</p>
<p>@About Time: I'm not going to lie; your constant berating of Columbia2002 and others is getting really annoying. You say that Columbia2002 gives Columbia students a bad name, but you're definitely not any better. I've learned more about Columbia from reading his posts than any other source, and I'd like to continue to do so, but it gets hard with your rants in between every post he makes with useful information.</p>
<p>I like how you claim to apologize on behalf of the "decent students" at Columbia, and I think it's great that you think you can characterize yourself among them, but I beg to differ. First of all, this is a forum, and I'm not sure if you realize how most forums work, but people post on their free time to help/talk to others. Poor grammar and composition skills are common as people don't necessarily have the time to go over their posts and check to make sure every nitpicker is satisfied. In addition to that, there is usually an etiquette involved in posting to forums, such as searching before you post, and when violated, rudeness/bluntness is not uncommon. I'm sorry if for some reason you think this reflects poorly on any group/association/university that the poster may be associated with, but that simply is not the case.</p>
<p>I know this is my first post, but I've been reading this forum for quite some time and am planning to apply ED to Columbia's SEAS. I can honestly say that some of the people that you claim are rude and reflect poorly on Columbia have been more helpful to prospective students than yourself. Almost all of your posts of that I have read are about how bad Columbia2002 is and how Columbia students are so different from him, but the majority of his posts are actually responding to people who have questions about Columbia.</p>
<p>Received this email from the ACLU mailing list last night:</p>
<hr>
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>Next Tuesday at 8 PM in Mcbain lounge, the ACLU will be sponsoring a<br>
forum on free speech. The university as a whole will be invited, and<br>
the following groups will be submitting a prepared statement to be<br>
read at the beginning of the forum. After the prepared statements,<br>
the forum will be opened up to the audience for questions, comments<br>
and conversation.</p>
<p>The groups that have stood up to participate are:</p>
<p>The College Democrats
The College Libertarians
The Blue and White</p>
<p>We are still waiting to hear back from the Columbia College<br>
Conservative Club, the Chicano Caucus and the College Republicans</p>
<p>In addition, the Columbia Political Union will be moderating.</p>
<p>Even if your club is not taking advantage of the opportunity to<br>
submit a statement, please let your membership know about the event.<br>
It is important that we show Columbia how much we value our right to<br>
speak freely. Any clubs that have not yet RSVPd, or made a decision<br>
regarding their participation should contact me as soon as possible<br>
to ensure that your club will be able to make a statement.</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Brendan Charney</p>
<hr>
<p>Sounds like they're doing this 'right'. They have all the groups they should, and the CPU is moderating.</p>
<p>Did anyone here consider that the College Republicans probably anticipated such a response? It seemed obvious to me when I heard about it on the news.</p>
<p>Anyway, Stanley Fish posted a blog supporting my thoughts yesterday.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Did anyone here consider that the College Republicans probably anticipated such a response? It seemed obvious to me when I heard about it on the news.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that it's been said, perhaps earlier in this thread. If not, then certainly elsewhere. I'm still having trouble figuring out why Kulawik continues inviting speakers completely unrelated to the Republican Party. Even the President's denounced the Minutemen. At least Ashcroft's a former Republican Senator and later served in this administration. Bringing in polarizing speakers to stir the spot, so to speak, beyond both Democrat and Republican, should be reserved for the fringe groups (of which we have plenty) -- not the College Republicans.</p>
<p>WindowShopping, Kulawik is an opportunist. He's made a lot of hay for the rightwing media and himself with such blatantly polarizing moves, and that will pay off handsomely for him upon graduation, whether or not it's at the expense of his Alma Mater or his country. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Was the toilet paper known as the Fed invited too?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's gotten slightly better this year, I think.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm still having trouble figuring out why Kulawik continues inviting speakers completely unrelated to the Republican Party. Even the President's denounced the Minutemen.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think the Minutemen guy is "totally unrelated" to the GOP. While the President has taken somewhat of a pro-immigration stance (his guest worker program, etc.), plenty of elected officials in the GOP have taken a much more hard line on the immigration controversy. These GOPers want the border closed, more guards on the border (including the militia rather than border patrol officers), etc. I don't think this is "totally unrelated" to the goals of the Minutemen.</p>