I love how moderators close or move......

[medhacker]

R, I think the Simpsons has been on since 1988.

No way! really? I would have said 1992 maybe, anyone knows for sure?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Jon Davis]

My favorite episode of The Simpsons: "PTA Disbands"

Old Man Jaspers:

"Talking out of turn… that's a paddlin’
Looking out the window... that's a paddlin’
Staring at my sandals... that's a paddlin’
Paddlin’ the school canoe… oh, you better believe that's a paddlin’"

Thats exactly the thought I had too. Kinda scary isnt it?

 

[medhacker]

Hey Rayhan what up dawg?

I am adding one:


List of conditions that necessitates bannin':
1. Complaining about the mods...that's a bannin'.
2. Questioning the mods...that's a bannin'.
3. Starting AA threads...that's a bannin'.
4. Starting minority in medicine threads...that's a bannin'.
5. Homework questions...that's a bannin'.
6. Personal attacks...that's a bannin'.
7. Illegal AAMC file sharin'...that's a bannin'.
8. Making asinine addendums...you better believe that's a bannin'.
9. Engaging in obvious or inconspicuous brownnosing with the MODs or others...that's a bannin'


j/k

 

[Jon Davis]

...American Dad are quality.

Sorry, but American Dad stinks worse than a used diaper filled with Indian food. (An Anchorman reference for those who don't know.)

 

[RayhanS1282]

R, I think the Simpsons has been on since 1988. I'm having trouble with numbers but I think that's a lot of years - at least 11. And Family Guy and American Dad are quality. Oh, and they have FOX News stuff on FOX occasionally, just in case you don't get enough of it on FOX News. And that always makes me laugh. Just the other day they were dispelling the liberal media bias by showing "IRAQ: The Untold Story". Iraq is doing great, by the way. FOX News told me so.

If it's said by Fox News, then it must be true.

Shoot, I think The Daily Show is more accurate than Fox news.

 

[jebus]

No way! really? I would have said 1992 maybe, anyone knows for sure?

According to this: http://www.thesimpsons.com/episode_guide/index.htm
The first episode was on 12.17.89!

 

[Jon Davis]

Phil,

Hows about making an addendum to the TOS?

List of conditions that necessitates bannin':
1. Complaining about the mods...that's a bannin'.
2. Questioning the mods...that's a bannin'.
3. Starting AA threads...that's a bannin'.
4. Starting minority in medicine threads...that's a bannin'.
5. Homework questions...that's a bannin'.
6. Personal attacks...that's a bannin'.
7. Illegal AAMC file sharin'...that's a bannin'.
8. Making asinine addendums...you better believe that's a bannin'.

How about sharing real MCAT questions?

I like this, lets keep it going.

 

[RayhanS1282]

Hey Rayhan what up dawg?

I am adding one:


List of conditions that necessitates bannin':
1. Complaining about the mods...that's a bannin'.
2. Questioning the mods...that's a bannin'.
3. Starting AA threads...that's a bannin'.
4. Starting minority in medicine threads...that's a bannin'.
5. Homework questions...that's a bannin'.
6. Personal attacks...that's a bannin'.
7. Illegal AAMC file sharin'...that's a bannin'.
8. Making asinine addendums...you better believe that's a bannin'.
9. Engaging in obvious or inconspicuous brownnosing with the MODs or others...that's a bannin'


j/k

I am shocked and nauseous with that insinuation!!! Anyone who knows me, knows that I save all my brown-nosing for medical schools.

 

[medhacker]

I am shocked and nauseous with that insinuation!!! Anyone who knows me, knows that I save all my brown-nosing for medical schools.

Homie,

I was not alluding to you, you should know that. Chill, we need all the brownnosing we can for Adcoms.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

I don't feel that the thread, based solely on the title and presumed topic, was worthy of closure. However, that call was made by the mods, and so be it. The problem I had with this outcry of disgust by the OP is the fact that the post she was offended by was made shortly after MIDNIGHT, and was closed at approximately 9 am. How can she attack the moderators for not catching a post immediately that was made when most people are fast asleep? If the post were 24 hours old, truly offensive, and still up, AND she had followed the proper channels to bring it to their attention, then that would be reason to complain. But the fact is she refused to use the mechanism that is provided to get offensive posts removed, and she refused to give the mods time to wake up and eat breakfast, and lord forbid they had to go to class or work, before screaming bloody murder. This is the only thing I had a problem with, and I hardly think it's brownnosing to say so. What would brownnosing accomplish on an anonymous internet forum anyway? Are the mods gonna give me a cookie?

Anyway, for what it's worth, I agree with shredder in that this is a public forum meant for discussing topics related to med school entrance. That thread was relevant to the forum topic. It violated no TOS, as it was not attacking any person or group, but was simply asking about the effect of AA on people's attitudes and feelings. Posts should not be closed just because they are not PC enough for someone. If I just up and decided one day that I think all threads talking about 'top-tier' med schools were offensive because I'm going to a state school, could I just start complaining and get all those threads closed? I certainly hope not. That said, IF the URM thread WAS a violation of TOS, and IF it WAS worthy of being closed, I see absolutely no room for complaint over the speed at which it was handled, and I think that some people may need to exercise patience and willingness to use the channels that are provided for getting things done.

I have to say, I felt the title and topic of the thread were offensive. "Do you resent URMs?" is the same thing as, "Do you resent Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians?" I could make a thread called, "Do you resent Whites and Asians?" and post the following:

"I know lots of URMs resent Whites and Asians because they always assume the worst about us. As an African American with a 30+ MCAt and high GPA, I feel targeted by groups who despise me for having "lower numbers" without actually knowing how competitive my application is. I feel they are unduly frustrated; and if they would like to get into medical school they should work harder to improve their applications instead of badgering me about my accomplishments. Do other URMs share my resentment?"

I would expect many members of these ethnic groups to be upset or even offended by my post. The purpose of the moderators is to keep things moderate. If you think censorship of SDN favors PC threads too much, then you can speak offensively about certain ethnic groups in a different forum.

 

[Jon Davis]

The purpose of the moderators is to keep things moderate.

Great line.

 

[MoosePilot]

I have to say, I felt the title and topic of the thread was offensive. "Do you resent URMs?" is the same thing as, "Do you resent Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians?" I could make a thread called, "Do you resent Whites and Asians?" and post the following:

"I know lots of URMs resent Whites and Asians because they always assume the worst about us. As an African American with a 30+ MCAt and high GPA, I feel targeted by groups who despise me for having "lower numbers" without actually knowing how competitive my application is. I feel they are unduly frustrated; and if they would like to get into medical school they should work harder to improve their applications instead of badgering me about my accomplishments. Do other URMs share my resentment?"

I would expect many members of these ethnic groups to be upset or even offended by my post. The purpose of the moderators is to keep things moderate. If you think censorship of SDN favors PC threads too much, then you can speak offensively about certain ethnic groups in a different forum.

The difference is the title to that thread wasn't really what it was about. It should have been "Do you resent AA policies in med school admissions?" Your counter example is about resentment of ORMs.

 

[Flopotomist]

According to this: http://www.thesimpsons.com/episode_guide/index.htm
The first episode was on 12.17.89!

yeah, but the Simpsons existed on TV before they had their own episodes. They started out having a segment on the Tracy Ullman show. I think it goes back to 87 or 88 when they were first on TV.

 

[veenut]

yeah, but the Simpsons existed on TV before they had their own episodes. They started out having a segment on the Tracy Ullman show. I think it goes back to 87 or 88 when they were first on TV.

yeah, and if you see some of the animation on those old tracey ullman sketches, they are surreal...really weird

 

[jebus]

yeah, and if you see some of the animation on those old tracey ullman sketches, they are surreal...really weird

I love.... how threads get hijacked.

 

[medhacker]

I love.... how threads get hijacked.

 

[RayhanS1282]

yeah, and if you see some of the animation on those old tracey ullman sketches, they are surreal...really weird

I saw a bit of it when they did a 100th episode special or something. The animation was toally weird, the size of characters changed in every scene and then the constantly moving hair. ....here's a pic:

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

The difference is the title to that thread wasn't really what it was about. It should have been "Do you resent AA policies in med school admissions?" Your counter example is about resentment of ORMs.

A few quotes by the OP:

“So after a lively debate in the dinning hall, I'd like to post a question to you all.

Do you resent URM's because of affirmative action?”

“It doesn't encourage judging people in any way. The poll is trying to find out how many non-URMs resent URMs because of affirmative action. This is an important issue that I think merits discussion. If you are in favor of either side of the issue, maybe you should lay out your reasons rather than simply suggesting that we forget the issue exists. No one is going to forget about it as long as affirmative action is a large part of admissions. The resentment can escalate into other types of prejudice against minorities and can also cause non minorities to assume that any URM could not have gotten in without affirmative action and is underqualified. I think most of us would agree this is detrimental to the success of URMs.”

This thread is about Affirmative Action in a round about way. The OP makes it clear that this was intended to be a discussion of a few ethnic groups resentment of a few others. The reason behind this resentment is AA, but the topic of conversation is not the policy, but the disdain among ethnic groups.

In my counter post, I am offering an argument for why I hypothetically resent certain ethnic groups. The reason for this resentment stems from their attitudes instead of from AA. These situations are quite comparable and equally inappropriate.

 

[MoosePilot]

A few quotes by the OP:

“So after a lively debate in the dinning hall, I'd like to post a question to you all.

Do you resent URM's because of affirmative action?”

“It doesn't encourage judging people in any way. The poll is trying to find out how many non-URMs resent URMs because of affirmative action. This is an important issue that I think merits discussion. If you are in favor of either side of the issue, maybe you should lay out your reasons rather than simply suggesting that we forget the issue exists. No one is going to forget about it as long as affirmative action is a large part of admissions. The resentment can escalate into other types of prejudice against minorities and can also cause non minorities to assume that any URM could not have gotten in without affirmative action and is underqualified. I think most of us would agree this is detrimental to the success of URMs.”

This thread is about Affirmative Action in a round about way. The OP makes it clear that this was intended to be a discussion of a few ethnic groups resentment of a few others. The reason behind this resentment is AA, but the topic of conversation is not the policy, but the disdain among ethnic groups.

In my counter post, I am offering an argument for why I hypothetically resent certain ethnic groups. The reason for this resentment stems from their attitudes instead of from AA. These situations are quite comparable and equally inappropriate.

Ok, you have interpreted differently than I did. That's ok. I still think there is a very important conversation to be had. If the majority resents the minority because of admission's policies, is this really helping integrate the medical community or detracting from it? If the policy means that minorities are thought to be handicapped (we wouldn't get help if we didn't need it, would we?), then is it really helping?

I've been sent more nasty comments on my MDApplicants profile based on that one aspect of my profile than I ever thought. That's not enough to make me care. I could give a crap what some f-ckhead wants to say to me, I just wish they'd say it in person. That kind of feeling multiplied by the numbers that feel it probably do more to hinder than to help. Now I wish I'd just claimed other, to signify my mutt heritage rather than "white" plus "Native American". I would feel cleaner about the whole thing.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Sorry, but American Dad stinks worse than a used diaper filled with Indian food. (An Anchorman reference for those who don't know.)

Smells like bigfoot's d!ck

 

[bananaface]

In response to the request for clarification on the site's policy on AA threads, the moderators have discussed and developed the following policy:

AA threads appropriate for PA would be ones where the OP is related to school admissions, such as "Do historically black colleges use AA?" or "Does XYZ SOM have an AA policy?"

AA threads appropriate for HT would be ones where the OP prompts discussion of AA in the context of the healthcare professions. As stated in the sticky at the top of this forum, civility is a requirement.

AA threads appropriate for Everyone would be all general discussions of AA, or discussions of AA that are not limited in scope to the healthcare professions or school admissions. If a thread has degenerated completely into general discussion and cannot not be brought back on track, it may be moved to Everyone.

 

[CCEMTP2DOC]

Smells like bigfoot's d!ck

How do you what big foot's...oh never mind.

 

[sparkle_]

For what it's worth, I found the thread extremely offensive and I'm not even an URM.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

How do you what big foot's...oh never mind.

Speaking of the movie Anchorman, I don't think Christina Applegate is as hot as she used be... even when she was on Married w/Children, I always preferred Peggy Bundy more. I could never understand why Al never wanted to hit that.

 

[Hausdaddy24]

For what it's worth, I found the thread extremely offensive and I'm not even an URM.

I take offense to the last comment about Peg Bundy being hotter than christina applegate.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I take offense to the last comment about Peg Bundy being hotter than christina applegate.

Peg's got curves that won't quit, and the tight leopard print shirts to boot. What's Christina got on that, son?