<p>^Again, in what way is “toolish, long-winded analysis” a direct insult? Into the context of that thread, the response was perfectly apt. Also, an approximately one-hundred-word response is far from effusive.</p>
<p>^She called your analysis toolish and mocked it. It was meant to make you feel silly.</p>
<p>It was supposed to be somewhat of an insult ([The</a> Emma Watson Effect | The Ink](<a href=“The Emma Watson Effect | University Press Club”>The Emma Watson Effect | University Press Club), I think it’s clearer when they reference it in that article), but I don’t think it was deserved. Mifune, in my opinion, is very eloquent and thoughtful…there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, it should be encouraged.</p>
<p>^HAHAHAHH
“Emma Watson at Brown orientation, surrounded by giants.”
she’s so tiny! but seriously, emma effect for sure. i love emma!</p>
<p>lol well that’s great. ugh</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i agree! all i hear about is that todays generation is lazy and a bunch of crappy writers who type “lol” and “dude” and “l8r” and not much more. at the very least at least someone attempts to show some degree of rationale.</p>
<p>btw, is “toolish” even a word?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s not.</p>
<p>My remark was made to appear lengthy simply because it was juxtaposed alongside other posts from the thread which were a matter of a line or two long.</p>
<p>lawl duuude peace</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I did not in any way feel slighted or silly. At the very least, I make a reasonable attempt to provide some degree of formalism and a moderate amount of insight into my posts. I fail to recognize how providing a half-respectable effort to answer something is fundamentally improper. Answering a response on how Princeton’s applications increased despite the apparent inconsistencies with demographical evidence does not necessarily require a response full of “lawls,” “dudes,” or smiley faces.</p>
<p>I hope that this post provides enough material for the next edition of the Princeton Lampoon.</p>
<p>At best she could only call it “long-winded” and “toolish.” </p>
<p>Granted, the Prince isn’t the best medium of refuting the online arguments of 17 year-olds, but I saw nothing fallacious within mifune’s post. I doubt Angela Wu did either (assuming she actually read it).</p>
<p>mifune - yeah, I understand that you didn’t feel silly. I guess your ego is so big that you refuse to see how your post being called “toolish” (do you know what a tool is? It’s a synonym for d-bag just in case you didn’t know) isn’t a bad thing. You go ahead and tell yourself that. </p>
<p>It was “improper” because you posted a long-winded analysis of a freaking joke article. I actually found Angela’s comment hilarious and very appropriate. It’s like someone telling a “why did the chicken cross the road” joke and then you replying with an essay about avian migration patterns.</p>
<p>It’s kind of pathetic how you need me to spell this out for you.</p>
<p>Also, just so you all have this straight in your head.</p>
<p>The Daily Princetonian is a distinct organization from the University Press Club, which publishes things on The Ink.</p>
<p>@randombetch- boy, you’re a betch</p>
<p>@Stupefy- boy, you’re a stupe</p>
<p>you’re pathetic randombetch. mifune isnt exactly the person you want to openly criticize when he and everyone else were agreeing or disagreeing with statements and you completely ruined that. this doesnt mean calling them some obnoxious term referring to some female cleaning product. how many times has mifune said that he doesnt find “toolish” to be a “bad thing?” he just doesnt agree that his post has been properly labeled as long-winded when it was posted in reply to another poster’s comment that was relevant and appropriate to what they wrote. and before you post i would suggest reading the original thread in which the posts were taken from and youll see that your chicken-migration analogy is complete crap. its sad that you need to rely on insults rather than half-intelligent language to get your points across. its your own ego thats the problem. </p>
<p>it’s kind of pathetic how you need me to spell this out for you, randomb****.</p>
<p>mifune is my buddy so don’t mess</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually the only thing that’s pathetic is that you stray from the conventional course of discussion to fill this thread with vituperative. Your excessive, emotive bias only functions to re-establish the tone of this cumulative dialogue from a healthy form of public discourse to one that irritates other individuals. Similar to what LuciaB posted, I and everyone else were merely discussing opinions and judgments and had absolutely no vile intentions of disrespecting each other with crass, ill-mannered, or derogatory language. The only motive for your inflammatory post was your own egotism. Directly attacking the speaker/individual is a very conceited tactic from a debate standpoint. If you do not individually concur with what I articulate, question my arguments rather than engaging in belligerent character assassination.</p>
<p>Before you proceed with your public humiliation campaign, allow me to state a few things. First, the right to voice oneself and express opinion, ideological stances, and individual insight is a Constitutionally-imparted right. Unmitigated defamation, on the other hand, is not. I simply feel that the juxtaposition of my comment with those from earlier in the thread (which were virtually unrelated to the discussion that Handala92 and I were having) did not suitably represent my post in its proper context. In other words, my comment did not directly succeed those from the original thread, rendering it to appear arbitrary and effusive in relation when it truly was not. Have you even bothered to read the original thread? I have provided the final three posts so you may acquaint yourself with the context in which my comment was written: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you wish to count, this last post totals to a paltry eighty-three words. That sum is less than the average paragraph.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you, pigs. I realize that you obtain a fair amount of hassle and insensitivity from others on these forums as well and I can empathize with the affronted feeling that this may cause.</p>
<p>A similar situation is occurring in posts #20, #21, and #22 of this thread:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/princeton-university/853846-sending-pton-ethical-2.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/princeton-university/853846-sending-pton-ethical-2.html</a></p>
<p>
did you know the proper, non-slang definition of stupe is:
a cloth wrung out of hot water for external application sometimes with an added medicament as an irritant to stimulate local circulation</p>