<p>came by to visit and was extremely disappointed with the poor quality of women at Columbia. my heart goes out to all the gentlemen at Columbia (good thing SoHo chicks aren't too far away, huh?). I really don't know what's worse for you guys: deliberately staying celibate due to lack of quality pickings or imprudently acting on sub-prime flesh out of sexual desperation? I'm not saying my college has better availability; it's just that I expected (admittedly, on a somewhat baseless manner) Columbia girls to be better simply because it's New York. Turns out Columbia women =/= rest of NYC girls - the two exist in separate and incongruous spheres.</p>
<p>quality pickings? sub-prime flesh? Does anyone else think that this is incredibly sexist?</p>
<p>hey omaplata, I read your past 22 posts. Either you write to be funny/ruffle feathers or you really are a douch_. If it's the latter, please post a link to your facebook page. I'm sure hot chicks everywhere will be lining up to date you.</p>
<p>p.s. a full time IB offer is not gonna happen- I would look into some other career options</p>
<p>It is indeed disappointing but sometimes brains are simply more endearing than beauty for us alphas... I was at a Christmas party with a stunning 6 ft. blonde "SoHo chick" not too long ago and she started choking on the peanuts that were laid out. I asked her if she were alright and she replied "yea, the peanuts just had some sort of weird protective layer on them". I examined the nuts very thoroughly and told her that "my dear, its called a shell"... Needless to say that was the last date I shall embark on with her. </p>
<p>Cant a woman be blessed with substance both on the inside and on the out? Not an easy feat but heres a few that have made the list: Beauty</a> & Brains: Celebrity Babes with High IQs - Being a Man - Fanpop</p>
<p>This thread is so obnoxious, it's not even funny. </p>
<p>aCTyankee....
Did you just refer to yourself as an alpha? elitist and arrogant much?</p>
<p>Alpha, sub-prime flesh, and quality pickings o_o. </p>
<p>Atleast they try.</p>
<p>
[quote]
quality pickings...sub-prime flesh
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LoL, well said, omaplata honestly, it's not that bad, you've come at an absolutely nadir. It's the dead of winter a week into school, everyone must look like sht, the only place on campus with decent looking girls are in the gym, and that's only because they're exercising, otherwise everyone everywhere is paler, fatter and btchier than usual. </p>
<p>This original post isn't sexist because the same language can be used for men / guys at columbia, I'm sure the girls consider guys subprime flesh in the winter and quality pickings in the spring (or so I'd hope).</p>
<p>
[quote]
came by to visit and was extremely disappointed with the poor quality of women at Columbia. my heart goes out to all the gentlemen at Columbia (good thing SoHo chicks aren't too far away, huh?). I really don't know what's worse for you guys: deliberately staying celibate due to lack of quality pickings or imprudently acting on sub-prime flesh out of sexual desperation? I'm not saying my college has better availability; it's just that I expected (admittedly, on a somewhat baseless manner) Columbia girls to be better simply because it's New York. Turns out Columbia women =/= rest of NYC girls - the two exist in separate and incongruous spheres.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>....You've never even had a tiny bit of sex have you?</p>
<p>Creepy dudes who go around referring to girls as "sub-prime flesh" are always the prototypical repressed virgins who only watch (and post on the inter-web of course).</p>
<p>It's a good thing you don't go here then, isn't it? Please feel free to never return.</p>
<p>LionHeaded seems to have hit the mark on you, imo.</p>
<p>This is a really funny thread.</p>
<p>Adjectives, adjectives.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>Maybe Columbia females aren't impressed with you either.</p>
<p>lolol that sucks </p>
<p>I actually research how hot the girls are at a university while I am applying, and after seeing a bunch of informational videos on Columbia, it was pretty disappointing. I was thinking that they just happened to choose a bad sample to film/interview but I guess you just shattered my hopes.</p>
<p>I never get this. Guys who get girls don't research them on the web before applying to a school! They just get attractive girls by... not being this. So really, this just changes the hotness of the women who are gonna be rejecting you for 4 years.</p>
<p>Wow. I guess confidentialcoll is the only one on this forum who can provide an answer, huh? My initial post was not intended to be sexist or demeaning, so my apologies if it came across that way. The intended tone was more so of disappointment and unmet expectations.</p>
<p>
<p>Yes, actually, I have. Next question.</p>
<p> [quote=squaregirl] ...</p>
<p>Maybe Columbia females aren't impressed with you either.
</p>
<p>Certainly very possible, but again, this falls outside of the scope of the initial subject matter. Please try to stay on topic, yeah?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe Columbia females aren't impressed with you either.
[/quote]
Line of the thread.
[quote]
Certainly very possible, but again, this falls outside of the scope of the initial subject matter. Please try to stay on topic, yeah?
[/quote]
Weak parry -- overly defensive and condescending. Not witty enough. 3/10.</p>
<p>Substantively, there are a million other threads discussing this. Some are linked in the Helpful Columbia Threads thread. Some are on the front page of this very board.</p>
<p>If that's not enough commentary to satiate your salacious spirit... well, my opinions are pretty clear on those threads. Model-grade hotness is in extremely short supply at Columbia. There are plenty of cute girls but the overall average is not too impressive. </p>
<p>And talking about them in terms and phrasing more appropriate for your cashflow models than your cash sinkholes is not going to win you any longterm points, around here or at Wharton. Here's a free, unsolicited tip which I fully expect to be ignored: To get women attracted to you, you have to get them to feel rather than to think. From what I can tell from your post history, it seems you think in a different set of terms and don't fully understand this. The number of women in history who've been wooed into bed on the basis of how smart a guy sounds is very small indeed. Why talk a girl to death when you can demonstrate to them your status, your sense of humor, your interest level in them? Thinking in terms of "acting on sub-prime flesh" and characteristics of populations is almost completely irrelevant to the question of getting a hot girl to take her clothes off. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is the motivation behind you starting this thread.</p>
<p>Good luck with all these hot chicks who apparently exist in SoHo. In my ventures down there I have mostly seen shoppers; the locals sitting in the cafes in backstreets are older, as young people can't really afford to live there, certainly under the age of 35. There are exceptions of course, but it's more a neighborhood for the Heath Ledgers of the world than a place where you're going to find hot local women in droves.</p>
<p>Except for the Pinkberry on Spring street. That place is a goldmine.</p>
<p>Denzera, I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to write an essay as a rebuttal to a simple observation but it makes you come off as quite a bloody tool (the 2,715 posts on an internet forum don't help either). Unemployment must suck, huh?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Weak parry -- overly defensive and condescending. Not witty enough. 3/10.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, please forgive me -- I had no idea my off-hand comments were being judged on a one through ten scale. See, if you had told me this ahead of time, I would have devised a stronger parry.</p>
<p>That longass paragraph beginning with the word "And" (which is grammatically incorrect any way you slice it) either 1) demonstrates your absolute train wreck of an attempt at fifth grade humor or 2) further affirms your douchiness (yes, it's a word -- if you look in Merriam-Webster, you'll see a mirror) and your pathetic inability to woo women. I'm inclined to assume it's neither just the former nor just the latter.</p>
<p>While this is all fun, good sir, I must request that you stop posting if you have no real substance to add to this otherwise amusing thread. I will no longer reply to your mindless and syntactically flawed (and very wordy, might I add) banter, for quite frankly, I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed.</p>
<p>Hey, omaplata, you might not have wanted to come off as sexist, but to many of us, your language and your choice of words are still offensive, okay? You might not have intended as such, but words such as "quality pickings" and "sub-prime flesh" makes us feel like a piece of meat. We don't appreciate it. </p>
<p>Of course, it is nice to have a pretty/hot student body as an addition to great educational opportunities. However, you're going to find in many "intellectual and prestigious" schools the same disappointment you had in Columbia. I suggest you look at transferring to some state schools (I am assuming that you already submitted your app, or have gotten into Columbia), especially in Cali, if you want to make student beauty demographics a primary part of your college experience.</p>
<p>As long as I can find 10-15 hot chicks on campus I'll be satisfied. Anything past that will get in the way of studying.</p>
<p>"You might not have intended as such, but words such as "quality pickings" and "sub-prime flesh" makes us feel like a piece of meat. We don't appreciate it."</p>
<p>Wow, really.... Dont find it even a tad romantic?</p>
<p>Luke you might find 10-15, but Im quite sure theyre all being seduced by a star CU football player or perhaps a noble laureate.</p>
<p>Columbia had "Rose Bowl 1936" up on the front page of their sports site last week. I'm just going to take a shot in the dark when I say the QB shouldn't be much competition.</p>