<p>
[quote]
) is not relevant, is it (although you have made the same suggestion to me multiple times now)? It's not relevant to whom you dirrected the statement "If you are back it up with proof...otherwise remain in the Cal board." I feel the way you did towards him towards you right now- I don't see any proof from you at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you ignore to see the proof then I can't help you. I have posted the same thing three times....how about you re-read the thread again?</p>
<p>
[quote]
is accurate after reinterpretting "you have no authority to tell people where they can and cannot post" into "don't tell people where they can and cannot post." You obviously can do whatever you want that is physically possible, but I was just saying you don't have the authority on these boards to tell people where they can and cannot post, which you assumed (and probably rightfully so, but not what I stated) that I implied that you shouldn't tell people where they can and cannot post because you lack the authority.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You have no authority to tell me what to say or not to say to anyone....and then call me a hypocrite. That makes you the hypocrite.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But anyway, if I lack the authority to tell you that you can't tell people where they can and cannot post, how is it that you can tell me that I am not a mod? It doesn't make sense.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I only told you that AFTER you told me what I can or cannot post. My only task was to prove that you are a hypocrite which I have.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Honestly, it doesn't matter how many people are on your side, citan. I know that 1) i'm correct and 2) you haven't proven anything with regard to my being a hypocrite in some way so far, but I would love to see you do it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>uh...yea you go on thinking that. I have already done it three times. You psuedo-intellecutal statements don't prove anything if you fail to grasp the simple things.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you trying to say that UCLA is somehow inferior to Cal? If you are back it up with proof...otherwise remain in the Cal board.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think CA2006 was just showing some school pride, and I don't see any rules about Berkeley students only posting in the Berkeley forums.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The data shows that UCLA is significantly cheaper than Cal. That's not an "opinion" unless you want to ignore the data altogether.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let's take a look at the data then:</p>
<p>UCLA triple in hallway w/14 premier meals: $9,369</p>
<p>Berkeley triple in hallway w/standard plan (14 meals roughly): $9,995</p>
<p>I don't see how this shows that UCLA is significantly cheaper than Berkeley. UCLA is cheaper by 6%. By the way, about half of the freshmen (which consist of the BULK of the dorms) live in the triples hallway.</p>
<p>I agree that the difference between the doubles are a little more, at around $2,000 between the two universities. That's about 16% cheaper. So, UCLA housing, as a whole, is roughly about 10% cheaper. I don't see that as "significantly" cheaper. If you see the 10% difference as "significantly cheaper," then yes that is your opinion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
quality was never being debated...the prices were.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Quality was brought into the thread when jhype talked about it so it's valid. No one said the thread has to be ONLY about the thread topic. We can talk about both.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't see how this shows that UCLA is significantly cheaper than Berkeley. UCLA is cheaper by 6%. By the way, about half of the freshmen (which consist of the BULK of the dorms) live in the triples hallway.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>if we were only comparing triples that would make sense. regarding the average prices, overall prices and prices depending on room capacity (and combined with tuition), UCLA is cheaper than Cal...whether you want to see the difference as significantly cheaper is up to you. although I doubt if the majority of cash-strapped college students share your view.</p>
<p>btw can you show me statistics which show that half of Cal freshmen live in triples?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree that the difference between the doubles are a little more, at around $2,000 between the two universities. That's about 16% cheaper. So, UCLA housing, as a whole, is roughly about 10% cheaper. I don't see that as "significantly" cheaper. If you see the 10% difference as "significantly cheaper," then yes that is your opinion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>2K difference is significantly cheaper. The prices of housing overall is cheaper, keeping in mind that the prices of UCLA's rooming combined with the best meal plan is still cheaper than Cal's rooming option combined with the worst meal plan. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Quality was brought into the thread when jhype talked about it so it's valid. No one said the thread has to be ONLY about the thread topic. We can talk about both.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>jhype was countering CA2006's statement about expensive housing correlating with nicer housing. the underlying subject was about costs.</p>
<p>But this is only an argument of opinions. You think it's significantly cheaper, I think it's slightly cheaper. We can both agree that UCLA dorming is cheaper than Berkeley dorming though.</p>
<p>I don't have statistics; this is just from what I have heard and general experience. I could dig it up sometime if I have free time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But this is only an argument of opinions. You think it's significantly cheaper, I think it's slightly cheaper. We can both agree that UCLA dorming is cheaper than Berkeley dorming though.</p>
<p>I don't have statistics; this is just from what I have heard and general experience. I could dig it up sometime if I have free time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ur right significantly cheaper is probably my opinion...but it's cheaper...we can have an endless argument about whether that difference is significant or not</p>
<p>I wonder if the fees on the first page include different things. For example, Berkeley's fees include part of the Regional Sports Facilities. (quite sly actually, so that each student "only" need to pay $10 to use the RSF)</p>