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?
I believe this is the gist of your argument on here, yes?
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.
again restated.
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.
Ok. Here, we've established the point you are trying to make, that its a hypocrisy to stoop to someone's level and resort to name calling, no? Well, let me ask you this, firstly, you claim that there is no need to generalise, that justifying an argument rests not upon this ability to create a basis but rather to what may i ask? Like i said in my previous quote, whilst it is a generalisation, it is one which is remotely true, there is a prestige and atmosphere within usyd which emanates forth with a pretentiousness and almost arrogant notion towards other unis. Who would start these rumours, these notions and taboo of the UWS and other 'non-sandstone' unis but those looking down upon them. On this account, i think that the discussion of atmosphere and student views upon their own uni and upon others is quite necessary, nay, integral to understanding this debate.
On the other hand, melbournian has raised the "UWS IS SHIT" argument. How so, apart from hearsay and without facts? He has raised an unwarranted attack on UWS, its students and on the name and reputation itself. Again, this is unjustified and likely an offshoot of the vast taboo and reputation given to UWS by other unis and those students who perceive it unjustly. So again i ask, how can you simply dismiss the discussion of atmosphere and of people's misconceptions upon UWS.
Which leads me to the more grossing matter of the crux of your point. That we shouldnt stoop down low to prove our point.
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.
Firstly, your "do not assume that i...." speech was touching really,
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.
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?
Secondly, and minorly, what is so 'petty' and 'frivolous' about arguing the reptutation of your uni from the misconceived perceptions of society today?
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).
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.
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 dont see anything wrong with defending your uni, especially when it is so ill informed and merely heresay.
To stoop down to the offendor, suggests that you view melbournian in a somewhat lower platform? Are you then, the one being hypocritical at the same time? Simply put, are you attempting to argue with us on a level playing field, or rather on another level? There seems to be an inconsistency which arises when it suits you best, for those arguing are at a lower level, as to yourself, who seems to be on a higher pedestal looking down upon the 'sad' uni students. So tell me, is this hypocritical, or just a lax in concentration? Ill put it down to the latter, and hope that we can clear this up. Otherwise, you yourself, by the very definition you have given us, have "stooped" to our levels, or rather to an even lower level for looking down upon those arguing about looking down upon others.