GPA Addendum - Please Critique! Forum

[hotdog123]

I did NOT say: "To be an orphan you must not know you're roots or past." I did not say "You are only an orphan if and only if you don't know you're roots or pasts." I said, to be an orphan is to not know your roots or pasts.

Those statements all carry the same implication, fyi.

[kalvano]

And even if you're not explicitly stating "According to Webster's dictionary, an orphan is..." you did say to be an orphan is to not know one's roots or past. Unless my example is flawed, I don't think that's right. That's why people have been saying you're not an orphan, because not knowing one's roots or past is not characteristic of an orphan. Orphans can and often do know their roots and past.

Agree 100% -- look at this...in plain terms

"X is Y"

X=Y (= defined as "always =")

An orphan = someone who does not know their roots or past

FALSE!

LOL. That is not how you would model that statement. It would be Set X(Y, Z, V)

Completely irrelevant, but funny.

[Pisto3]

And even if you're not explicitly stating "According to Webster's dictionary, an orphan is..." you did say to be an orphan is to not know one's roots or past. Unless my example is flawed, I don't think that's right. That's why people have been saying you're not an orphan, because not knowing one's roots or past is not characteristic of an orphan. Orphans can and often do know their roots and past.

Agree 100% -- look at this...in plain terms

"X is Y"

X=Y (= defined as "always =")

An orphan = someone who does not know their roots or past

FALSE!

LOL. That is not how you would model that statement. It would be Set X(Y, Z, V)

Even if that was true...

Set x = "characteristics of an orphan"

Y = someone who does not know their roots
Z = someone who does not know their past
V = some other fact about orphans

If you are saying that all characteristics are part of the set - Set X MUST include Y Z AND V), this is false because some orphans do know their roots and some orphans do know their past.

If you are saying that only one characteristic must be part of the set, the logic is invalid anyway. I could make fact V be "someone wearing a yellow shirt" and then I would be an orphan as well.

Come to think of it, I was adopted...

<never took symbolic logic> -> SUE ME IF THIS IS WRONG

[Always Credited]

I did not give a definition of the word orphan. That is your mistake.

To say what something is is to define it.

Yes.

And even if you're not explicitly stating "According to Webster's dictionary, an orphan is..." you did say to be an orphan is to not know one's roots or past. Unless my example is flawed, I don't think that's right. That's why people have been saying you're not an orphan, because not knowing one's roots or past is not characteristic of an orphan. Orphans can and often do know their roots and past.

I did NOT say: "To be an orphan you must not know you're roots or past." I did not say "You are only an orphan if and only if you don't know you're roots or pasts." I said, to be an orphan is to not know your roots or pasts. To be a basketball player is to know how to dribble. To be unemployed is to be seeking work. Must all basketball players know how to dribble? What if a basketball player got hit in the head and doesn't know how to dribble yet is still registered with the league? Is he still a basketball player? The answer is yes. Do you have to be seeking work if you are unemployed? No, absolutely not. These are descriptive statements, not definitions.

--ImageRemoved--

[bk1]

Please, think about what you guys are doing here!

[recaldo]

And even if you're not explicitly stating "According to Webster's dictionary, an orphan is..." you did say to be an orphan is to not know one's roots or past. Unless my example is flawed, I don't think that's right. That's why people have been saying you're not an orphan, because not knowing one's roots or past is not characteristic of an orphan. Orphans can and often do know their roots and past.

Agree 100% -- look at this...in plain terms

"X is Y"

X=Y (= defined as "always =")

An orphan = someone who does not know their roots or past

FALSE!

LOL. That is not how you would model that statement. It would be Set X(Y, Z, V)

Even if that was true...

Set x = "characteristics of an orphan"

Y = someone who does not know their roots
Z = someone who does not know their past
V = some other fact about orphans

If you are saying that all characteristics are part of the set - Set X MUST include Y Z AND V), this is false because some orphans do know their roots and some orphans do know their past.

If you are saying that only one characteristic must be part of the set, the logic is invalid anyway. I could make fact V be "someone wearing a yellow shirt" and then I would be an orphan as well.

Come to think of it, I was adopted...

<never took symbolic logic> -> SUE ME IF THIS IS WRONG

It's an infinitive phrase, basically. If I said "To be human is to make errors" it's the same as "To err is human."

"To be an orphan is to not know one's roots or past" is the same as To be rootless is orphan-like.

The verb in this case is acting as an adjective. It's not the logic you think it is.

[kalvano]

It's not the logic you think it is.

[recaldo]

It's not the logic you think it is.

How do you explain the phrase: To be a basketball is to know how to dribble.

Knowing how to dribble is clearly not the definition of a basketball player. But it is a property of most.

Or to be unemployed is to be seeking work. It is not the definition of an unemployed person, but it is a property of most.

How do you explain these statements when there is some truth to them in certain contexts and some falsity to them in certain contexts.

[Always Credited]

It's not the logic you think it is.

How do you explain the phrase: To be a basketball is to know how to dribble.

Knowing how to dribble is clearly not the definition of a basketball player. But it is a property of most.

Or to be unemployed is to be seeking work. It is not the definition of an unemployed person, but it is a property of most.

How do you explain these statements when there is some truth to them in certain contexts and some falsity to them in certain contexts.

[kalvano]

How do you explain the phrase: To be a basketball is to know how to dribble.

Knowing how to dribble is clearly not the definition of a basketball player. But it is a property of most.

Or to be unemployed is to be seeking work. It is not the definition of an unemployed person, but it is a property of most.

How do you explain these statements when there is some truth to them in certain contexts and some falsity to them in certain contexts.

[clintonius]

I did not give a definition of the word orphan. That is your mistake.

To say what something is is to define it.

Oh really? LOL. I didn't know you solved hundreds of years of philosophical inquiry and know what is means.

Also, again, if you read my response to this, you will see that 1)that is not what I meant and 2)that to say "To be a professional basketball player is to know how to dribble" is not the definition of a professional basketball player, yet profesisonal basketball playrs know how to dribble.

What don't you understand? I am happy to explain

OP is Bill Clinton.

[Always Credited]

--ImageRemoved--

[clintonius]

How do you explain the phrase: To be a basketball is to know how to dribble.

Knowing how to dribble is clearly not the definition of a basketball player. But it is a property of most.

Or to be unemployed is to be seeking work. It is not the definition of an unemployed person, but it is a property of most.

How do you explain these statements when there is some truth to them in certain contexts and some falsity to them in certain contexts.

--ImageRemoved--

[Always Credited]

--ImageRemoved--

[Rikkugrrl]

Just got back from dinner and heavy conversation about politics. This thread brought the laughter back into my evening .

OP, final word. You seemed like you genuinely didn't understand why people were telling you you're not an orphan and why that line sounded out of place. That's why I tried to explain it. Now I'm starting to think you're just sticking to your guns out of principle. As is, this addendum will most likely hurt more than help. It portrays you as melodramatic and a little crazy (it doesn't matter whether you actually are or not; this is how the adcoms will see you based on this addendum). Listen to the people on this thread. You might not like what they're saying or how they're saying it, but their criticisms are generally merited.

Also, something I've been wanting to say. In the other thread you went on and on about good writing and how you're a writer and you've got lots of accomplishments to prove it. If you wrote a famous book, you had it edited, and you most likely had a good bit revised and even completely cut out. Some of the world's best writers don't even recognize their work by the time it's done being shredded by editors. Good writers can't be so attached to their work that they dismiss criticism and feel personally insulted by it. Our advice is to get rid of the orphan nonsense because it will improve your writing. There's also been a good amount of other credible advice in this thread. Follow it or don't follow it; we have no stake in it. As my sister likes to say, it's your movie, you're directing.

[recaldo]

Just got back from dinner and heavy conversation about politics. This thread brought the laughter back into my evening .

OP, final word. You seemed like you genuinely didn't understand why people were telling you you're not an orphan and why that line sounded out of place. That's why I tried to explain it. Now I'm starting to think you're just sticking to your guns out of principle. As is, this addendum will most likely hurt more than help. It portrays you as melodramatic and a little crazy (it doesn't matter whether you actually are or not; this is how the adcoms will see you based on this addendum). Listen to the people on this thread. You might not like what they're saying or how they're saying it, but their criticisms are generally merited.

Also, something I've been wanting to say. In the other thread you went on and on about good writing and how you're a writer and you've got lots of accomplishments to prove it. If you wrote a famous book, you had it edited, and you most likely had a good bit revised and even completely cut out. Some of the world's best writers don't even recognize their work by the time it's done being shredded by editors. Good writers can't be so attached to their work that they dismiss criticism and feel personally insulted by it. Our advice is to get rid of the orphan nonsense because it will improve your writing. There's also been a good amount of other credible advice in this thread. Follow it or don't follow it; we have no stake in it. As my sister likes to say, it's your movie, you're directing.

My point is that you are in no position to critique my writing because you aren't educated, well-read, or smart enough to give it the critique is deserves. Your edits were babyish. Other people on this thread who are smarter than you(judging by the law schools they are going to) seem to think it is written well and smart. Sorry, you just don't know how to write a good essay that will get you into a good law school.

[recaldo]

Just got back from dinner and heavy conversation about politics. This thread brought the laughter back into my evening .

OP, final word. You seemed like you genuinely didn't understand why people were telling you you're not an orphan and why that line sounded out of place. That's why I tried to explain it. Now I'm starting to think you're just sticking to your guns out of principle. As is, this addendum will most likely hurt more than help. It portrays you as melodramatic and a little crazy (it doesn't matter whether you actually are or not; this is how the adcoms will see you based on this addendum). Listen to the people on this thread. You might not like what they're saying or how they're saying it, but their criticisms are generally merited.

Also, something I've been wanting to say. In the other thread you went on and on about good writing and how you're a writer and you've got lots of accomplishments to prove it. If you wrote a famous book, you had it edited, and you most likely had a good bit revised and even completely cut out. Some of the world's best writers don't even recognize their work by the time it's done being shredded by editors. Good writers can't be so attached to their work that they dismiss criticism and feel personally insulted by it. Our advice is to get rid of the orphan nonsense because it will improve your writing. There's also been a good amount of other credible advice in this thread. Follow it or don't follow it; we have no stake in it. As my sister likes to say, it's your movie, you're directing.

My point is that you are in no position to critique my writing because you aren't educated, well-read, or smart enough to give it the critique is deserves. Your edits were babyish. Other people on this thread who are smarter than you(judging by the law schools they are going to) seem to think it is written well and smart. Sorry, you just don't know how to write a good essay that will get you into a good law school.

Additionally, you can't understand the essay! You can't actually understand it because you can't think abstractlly. You keep saying, "oh if we think this then adcomms might think it too." No they fucking won't. No one on that commission will be so stupid.

[clintonius]

Just got back from dinner and heavy conversation about politics. This thread brought the laughter back into my evening .

OP, final word. You seemed like you genuinely didn't understand why people were telling you you're not an orphan and why that line sounded out of place. That's why I tried to explain it. Now I'm starting to think you're just sticking to your guns out of principle. As is, this addendum will most likely hurt more than help. It portrays you as melodramatic and a little crazy (it doesn't matter whether you actually are or not; this is how the adcoms will see you based on this addendum). Listen to the people on this thread. You might not like what they're saying or how they're saying it, but their criticisms are generally merited.

Also, something I've been wanting to say. In the other thread you went on and on about good writing and how you're a writer and you've got lots of accomplishments to prove it. If you wrote a famous book, you had it edited, and you most likely had a good bit revised and even completely cut out. Some of the world's best writers don't even recognize their work by the time it's done being shredded by editors. Good writers can't be so attached to their work that they dismiss criticism and feel personally insulted by it. Our advice is to get rid of the orphan nonsense because it will improve your writing. There's also been a good amount of other credible advice in this thread. Follow it or don't follow it; we have no stake in it. As my sister likes to say, it's your movie, you're directing.

My point is that you are in no position to critique my writing because you aren't educated, well-read, or smart enough to give it the critique is deserves. Your edits were babyish. Other people on this thread who are smarter than you(judging by the law schools they are going to) seem to think it is written well and smart. Sorry, you just don't know how to write a good essay that will get you into a good law school.

I'll be attending NYU (not sure if you view that as a "good" law school) and I think your writing was garbage, and I shared it with a friend who will be at the same school and said it sounded like a high school freshman's work.

People can't understand your "addendum" because you are not writing clearly. Nobody should have to make a multi-step deduction to figure out whether or not you're talking about 9/11; nobody should have to argue with your definition of "orphan"; nobody should wonder what your relationship to your formerly-supposed brother actually is.

[recaldo]

Just got back from dinner and heavy conversation about politics. This thread brought the laughter back into my evening .

OP, final word. You seemed like you genuinely didn't understand why people were telling you you're not an orphan and why that line sounded out of place. That's why I tried to explain it. Now I'm starting to think you're just sticking to your guns out of principle. As is, this addendum will most likely hurt more than help. It portrays you as melodramatic and a little crazy (it doesn't matter whether you actually are or not; this is how the adcoms will see you based on this addendum). Listen to the people on this thread. You might not like what they're saying or how they're saying it, but their criticisms are generally merited.

Also, something I've been wanting to say. In the other thread you went on and on about good writing and how you're a writer and you've got lots of accomplishments to prove it. If you wrote a famous book, you had it edited, and you most likely had a good bit revised and even completely cut out. Some of the world's best writers don't even recognize their work by the time it's done being shredded by editors. Good writers can't be so attached to their work that they dismiss criticism and feel personally insulted by it. Our advice is to get rid of the orphan nonsense because it will improve your writing. There's also been a good amount of other credible advice in this thread. Follow it or don't follow it; we have no stake in it. As my sister likes to say, it's your movie, you're directing.

My point is that you are in no position to critique my writing because you aren't educated, well-read, or smart enough to give it the critique is deserves. Your edits were babyish. Other people on this thread who are smarter than you(judging by the law schools they are going to) seem to think it is written well and smart. Sorry, you just don't know how to write a good essay that will get you into a good law school.

I'll be attending NYU (not sure if you view that as a "good" law school) and I think your writing was garbage, and I shared it with a friend who will be at the same school and said it sounded like a high school freshman's work.

Send me ur personal staetment please.

[clintonius]

Pardon the edit -- didn't think you'd get to a response so quickly. I'll re-state the edit here:

People can't understand your "addendum" because you are not writing clearly. Nobody should have to make a multi-step deduction to figure out whether or not you're talking about 9/11; nobody should have to argue with your definition of "orphan"; nobody should wonder what your relationship to your formerly-supposed brother actually is.

And, no. I will not send you my personal statement. But a tip: it doesn't end with "I got over it."

[recaldo]

Just got back from dinner and heavy conversation about politics. This thread brought the laughter back into my evening .

OP, final word. You seemed like you genuinely didn't understand why people were telling you you're not an orphan and why that line sounded out of place. That's why I tried to explain it. Now I'm starting to think you're just sticking to your guns out of principle. As is, this addendum will most likely hurt more than help. It portrays you as melodramatic and a little crazy (it doesn't matter whether you actually are or not; this is how the adcoms will see you based on this addendum). Listen to the people on this thread. You might not like what they're saying or how they're saying it, but their criticisms are generally merited.

Also, something I've been wanting to say. In the other thread you went on and on about good writing and how you're a writer and you've got lots of accomplishments to prove it. If you wrote a famous book, you had it edited, and you most likely had a good bit revised and even completely cut out. Some of the world's best writers don't even recognize their work by the time it's done being shredded by editors. Good writers can't be so attached to their work that they dismiss criticism and feel personally insulted by it. Our advice is to get rid of the orphan nonsense because it will improve your writing. There's also been a good amount of other credible advice in this thread. Follow it or don't follow it; we have no stake in it. As my sister likes to say, it's your movie, you're directing.

My point is that you are in no position to critique my writing because you aren't educated, well-read, or smart enough to give it the critique is deserves. Your edits were babyish. Other people on this thread who are smarter than you(judging by the law schools they are going to) seem to think it is written well and smart. Sorry, you just don't know how to write a good essay that will get you into a good law school.

I'll be attending NYU (not sure if you view that as a "good" law school) and I think your writing was garbage, and I shared it with a friend who will be at the same school and said it sounded like a high school freshman's work.

Send me ur personal staetment please.

Post something you wrote then.

[clintonius]

Oy with the quick responses! I should have learned. Anyways, no. You're changing your metric. I'm off to watch West Wing and eat a chimichanga.

[d34d9823]

Moral of the story: "please critique" in the thread title should be understood as "Please say nice things about my sucky writing. If you post actual critiques, I will insult you and question your credentials."

[recaldo]

Pardon the edit -- didn't think you'd get to a response so quickly. I'll re-state the edit here:

People can't understand your "addendum" because you are not writing clearly. Nobody should have to make a multi-step deduction to figure out whether or not you're talking about 9/11; nobody should have to argue with your definition of "orphan"; nobody should wonder what your relationship to your formerly-supposed brother actually is.

And, no. I will not send you my personal statement. But a tip: it doesn't end with "I got over it."

1)9/11 or not - Ridiculous to think that unless you are a simpleton who thinks all planes that hit buildings in nyc = 9/11. not true. and the details of the essay reveal such! such as two people dying! did two people die in 9/11??

2)definition of orphan - no adcomm would crtiique it the way you are critiquing it. it is totally ridiculous to take such a literal interpretation. no one who had reading comp skills would fail to understand the orphan point

3)relationship to my brother?? what are you talking about??

4)I got over it was a first draft ending.

Lastly, I don't doubt that you go to NYU - but I'm positive your career will suck ass cause u just dont "get it"

[recaldo]

Oy with the quick responses! I should have learned. Anyways, no. You're changing your metric. I'm off to watch West Wing and eat a chimichanga.

Post something dude. back up that u know what ur talking about. what a wuss.