<p>Regardless of whether people are all up in my hominem grille or not, the point is that in these two fields Columbia and Penn are both top-notch, and since both are hard to get into, you should apply to both and only hope you have the chance to pick between the two.</p>
<p>Unless that is you are aiming for ED advantage, that is (which could be wise as Columbia RD has gone into single digits and Penn RD isn't far behind)...in that case you need to pick, but since academic quality is interchangeable--at least in these fields--it should really be more about fit.</p>
<p>Columbia seems almost like going straight into grad school, whereas Penn is more "wooo! college!" To me, the latter is preferable. To you and plenty others, the former is the ideal.</p>
<p>pablo: I need to get CC out of my system. I'll make this last point in order to sate my "I'm right" muscle and then be off for another few months. </p>
<p>An ad hominem argument attacks the person rather than the person's claim <em>with the intent of discrediting the person's claim.</em> It is a means to a very specific end. As I said above, I did not intend to discredit bagel's claim. I attacked character because that was my intent <em>in and of itself.</em> That should be clear enough. Phew, I'm off.</p>
<p>That's correct; but ilovebagels never said that you made an ad hominem ARGUMENT. If he did, you would be correct.</p>
<p>He said that your comment was ad hominem. This is true. "Ad hominem" is a stand-alone adjective; it does not merely exist in the compound word "ad hominem argument."</p>
<p>Do you really not get this? You're wrong.</p>
<p>^ I can't quit you CC. Can't...quit...you.</p>
<p>In common usage "ad hominem" is metonymic for "ad hominem argument" (argumentum ad hominem). To boot, 'ad hominem for the <em>win</em>" places the term within a rhetorical (classical sense) discourse; "argument" is therein implied as well.</p>
<p><em>taunts</em></p>
<p>Musil's goin to laaaaaw school, Musil's going to laaaaaw school...</p>
<p>^ Steve, I will respond to your childish provocation only because I am at the airport, bored.</p>
<p>I would direct an ad hominem (argument--of course) against you, but I'm afraid that such rhetorical attentions would re-inflame the muted homoerotic urges that were born on that fine Boston morning when, placed in that cozy room of nursery pinks and blues, we both reached for the same lego and our hands touched, and we looked into each others' over-sized baby eyes, and, and, well, I believe we and our therapists both know what happened then.</p>
<p>^^Musil, why haven't we met yet? I think I just developed a crush on your online personality.</p>
<p>That is, if you're a guy. If you're a girl, forget I said anything.</p>
<p>^^Sucker. He's a guy. I win. Go back to your hole in Butler.</p>