Done .natstar said:on second thoughts i guess u cant judge a book by its cover (also as far as UWS campuses go, u cant jjudge a book by its cover).
Students helping students, join us in improving Bored of Studies by donating and supporting future students!
Done .natstar said:on second thoughts i guess u cant judge a book by its cover (also as far as UWS campuses go, u cant jjudge a book by its cover).
AsyLum said:But my dear, the status and what people think of that prestige is exactly what we're talking about here. By merely illustrating that little fact, there really isnt anything we are doing wrong, on the vast majority, you will find people and the atmosphere there to be somewhat pretentious and snobby.You have a good knack for twisting arguments to fit your agenda. This about hypocrisy and the fact that there is no need to stoop to someone else's level to prove a point. This applies to everything, not just the issue over the universities.
Sarah168 said:AsyLum said:But my dear, the status and what people think of that prestige is exactly what we're talking about here. By merely illustrating that little fact, there really isnt anything we are doing wrong, on the vast majority, you will find people and the atmosphere there to be somewhat pretentious and snobby.whoa, whoa whoa.You have a good knack for twisting arguments to fit your agenda. This about hypocrisy and the fact that there is no need to stoop to someone else's level to prove a point. This applies to everything, not just the issue over the universities.
Twisting arguments to serve my agenda? Sorry, you and melbournian suggested these ideas. I merely emphasised what they were on about, and exactly what we were arguing and basing our retalliation from. Im sorry if it offended you to see those arguments used against you and their vices made terribly clear. But perhaps you should think twice before defending such a shaky basis before you claim that we are not entitled to defend against an attack.
And you're claim of us being sad uni students, what right as a high school student do you then possess? I assume you expect that your thoughts and opinions are just as valid as ours, in which case, then "stooping" to the levels should be nothing more than a valid conversational argument in which we are on equal footing no? If indeed we possess different rights at which we can claim validity in argument and defence, then should we not revert ourselves down to the level of arguers and attackers lest we be accused of taking the moral high ground and rather than defending ourselves in the argument and of the accusations being thrust upon, just merely state upon our level and rather have two monologues on two different levels?
I have considered that actually. I would ignore it. People like that are not worth my time, effort and energy to reply to. I understand that not everybody responds in such a way but that is what I would do. I have gotten into an argument with melbournian before (a long time ago and over "superiority" issues as well), I replied once and when I saw his disgustingly distorted view on life and the educational system, I ignored it. Nat, you're proud of your uni and that is admirable, but don't detract from your integrity by responding in "melbournian style".natstar said:Put it is this context. If u were a student at UWS and had Melbournian say this all at u, what would u do?
I believe this is the gist of your argument on here, yes?Sarah168 said:Do I need to point out what is wrong with the above comment? Yes, we realise that there are members who "believe" their uni is superior to others but is it necessary to join them in their generalisations?
again restated.Sarah168 said:It's isnt the "status" of a university that I'm pre-occupied about. I couldnt care less whether people think their uni is "above" the rest or whether a certain uni has a friendlier atmosphere. That isnt the gist of my posts at all. I'm pointing out that there is no need to stoop to somebody's elses level in order to justify an argument.
Sarah168 said:You have a good knack for twisting arguments to fit your agenda. This about hypocrisy and the fact that there is no need to stoop to someone else's level to prove a point. This applies to everything, not just the issue over the universities.
Firstly, your "do not assume that i...." speech was touching really,Sarah168 said:I didn't suggest an idea and didn't pass judgement on any universities. I was merely pointing out Natstar's hypocrisies. Do not assume that I believe my statements are as valid or anymore valid than yours. I myself am aspiring to be a university student and thereby was simply conveying my dissapointment in seeing those older than me arguing over succh frivolous and petty views in such a hypocritical way.
but please tell me, you wish to enforce your point of view that we are wrong about "lowering" ourselves, no? Is that meant to be below our statements, or is it, as your statement assumes, that you wish for us to take your statement as a valid one like our own, which i have no problem in taking mind you, and perhaps you misconstrued my explanation before. I was merely trying to say that we are all on equal footing, rather than "stooping" everyone has their right opinion, that is what is so great about the internet, everyone can basically argue upon a level playing field. Now using that, this conversing/arguing cannot be "stooping" if we are to take each other validly as i have said. Otherwise, we risk the problem, of arguing on two different levels, that is looking down upon, or looking up at, in which i tend to disagree there to be a need of it. My gripe is upon an unwarranted attack, and one which is falsely strung together rather than the defence of UWS. Once provoked in such a fashion, one should expect no less, should they not? An opening salvo in trading words if i may add, but once we have arisen to the actual argument, i see very little to suggest otherwise that generally there is an atmosphere within USYD that announces itself as anything other than 'superior,' thus one would agree that as such, USYD sees itself at a heightened level to those others, thus, the snob is warranted no? if not then shall we digress upon pretentious then?Sarah168 said:This is so pathetic...esp coming from uni students.
When I said "done", I meant that I was glad you were able to see my point even if you are reluctant to do so.
Here we have another problem, you have classified the two as mere generalisations, when one is misconception, the other a generalisation. One has some credibility and some truth, whilst the other is nothing more than a derogatory perception. To class them as such is a mistake. Correct me if i am wrong on that one.mebournian insinuates that UWS is crap, students cant get hired, are on the lowest rung of society etc etc (generalisation or not). Natstar decides to defend her uni by biting back and calling usyd snobs (generalisation or not).
I dont see anything wrong with defending your uni, especially when it is so ill informed and merely heresay.You don't see anything wrong about this? Im not saying people shouldnt defend against attacks. Im saying that when you ARE on the defensive, using a hypocritical approach and stooping to the methods of the offender is pathetic.
I just finished my philosophy assignment fresh off socratic dialogue, thought id practice it on this argument.SuGa BunI =D said:chills asy, no need for an essay at nearly 1 am lolz
like i said before, some uni better than no uni or bumming or on the dole![]()