Assume Nothing

Uh, to reread the posts, the original question was 'Is it normal', so I guess my objection wouldn't really apply, since its slightly irrelevant/tangential.

Banned for the persistent use of text-speak.

It's normal -> it's justified? I agree with the conclusions drawn, but I don't follow your reasoning.

I think its based on the flawed notion that 'eating meat -> obesity', 'to lose weight and thus be healthy -> go vegetarian'. That poster makes no sense anyways - it seems to endorse whales as its caption is to 'save the whales'.

Banned for posting trivia. I would move on if you would - but you gave a response, so I'd write a further response to address your points within your arguments. I'm happy to continue with the dispute, but if you're uncomfortable with it, then it's your responsibility to stop - not mine. Do you want to move on though, or do you feel you've got more to say about it? It appears that you do want the last word, but you don't want to keep the discussion going, so you're in a bit of an odd position of deciding. It's not just about personal preference here, since your choices affect other people rather directly.

When you refer to taking away other's enjoyment, do you mean your own? If so, then I have no moral qualms against doing so. It's called adapting - I don't believe that being reluctant to change, or simply being stubborn would really be beneficial to anyone, except maybe to save your ego. You have to realise that those who like your quotes are probably a considerably small section of the community, given that so many have expressed a dislike of it (I can't show you because I don't have access to staff boards, but I act as a witness in that regard). I don't mean to upset you, but an objective of mine is to inform you that this has been identified as an issue, even if you were unaware of it for over a year. We all have our own quirks, but when it starts becoming rather obtrusive to audience you're aiming your messages at, then you've got a problem. Could you briefly show me how you would compose a formal post, so I could offer an alternate style? I'll show you what I mean if you could do that. Banned for replying when you're uncomfortable with the conversation.

No it doesn't. There's a criterion called plausibility. A vast majority of people don't commit these crimes, whereas the likelihood of pregnancy is considerably greater.

Would it be novel-like or non-fiction like? I'm thinking The Matrix sequels, or something to that extent.

Please tell us the genre.

We need statistics on why people choose a particular course. I'm a bit confused on your use of statistics. Could you briefly explain what this means? "Then non-GCSE course students with the same grade can't get any grant whatsoever. Has this changed who does what? From what I've seen, not a single bit, as 180+ people were interviewed for 24 places at a university I had an interview at, more than previous years, and that isn't including those who didn't get an interview." I'm not sure what to make of that. I've lost you after 'as 180+ people' - how does that prove the distribution didn't change again?

Off-hand things and tl;dr's could be written as an off-hand note or a tl;dr. The problem I have with it is the fact that its an obtrusive eyesore. It's like looking at a ruined rose garden, wind turbines in countrysides, flashing banners that claim you're a one in a million winner, a really stormy/cloudy day, etc. It's like a fly that just wouldn't go away. Oh, and to be absolutely frank, its arrogant to quote yourself. I'm sure there's agreement across the boards that it is rather annoying, but most rather not say because it may be deemed as offensive. My objective isn't to be offensive - my objective is to help you by offering critique. Banned for forcing me to write a two paragraph reply, discounting this sentence. EDIT - eh, banned for getting in the way.

Straw man. People operate on incentives. People are egoistic and like to think for themselves, regardless of intention. It usually requires strong conscious effort to be truly altruistic. For their own minds, short term is more relevant than long term, therefore it takes priority - so, short term gains or minimizing short term losses is a considerably stronger incentive than long-term gains. That's why funding is so relevant - its an immediate withdrawal of money, even in the form of loans.

If a good paying (of money) isn't convincing, what makes a cheaper (of money) tuition any better? And you're horribly biased by calling academic degrees as "correct" ones. Stop judging and maybe people will respond kinder. And quote tags. Use them. People are generally short-term thinkers. Economists are concerned with the long-term gains. Studying media/arts would be more fun in the short term, but worse on average for the long-term. I'm labeling academics as a generally good thing over media/arts because I see actual necessity for them. I don't see the same necessity in media/arts, which is why I'm generally against it. We're not discussing whether we should eliminate the courses - rather, we're talking about whether we should change the fees to reduce the saturated media/arts courses, and replace them into some of the empty seats in academics. I'll even present a counterargument for you, since you prefer to make personal taunts instead of actual reasoning. I admit that those interested in media/arts may not have an interest in academics, so it would be pointless to try and persuade them to do academics. But, the counterpoint would be that they won't have to - they can stay in media/arts if it really benefited them that much. It's likely that the benefits of such an action could dwarf the costs of raising tuition fees for 'soft, pointless degrees'. We are talking on a massive scale here.

Banned for creating a nest of hide tags.

People are irrational and lazy - you know that. We need to create incentives that could persuade them to take the correct courses. A good means of doing that would be through strategic pricing.

If the options were so bad, someone could have suggested that none should be picked in priority over another. *insert twenty eyeroll smileys for sarcastic effect, despite having no effect to the argument itself*

Cried? Non-explanatory post? So bad at debating? I'm calling bullshit until you provide some references to what you're claiming. Hypocrites of legend, you honestly are. Open your eyes and see.

To take a slightly different direction - When media campaigns start doing this:

Um, no? If people get these degrees and find no work, they're going to work the same as uneducated workers - which ARE needed. Either way, it's up to the person if he wants to be a Nationalist or an Independent, not the government. If we compare it to the current situation, we have too many people taking arts/media, and too few taking academics. The jobs would be available because they are considered a national asset, so your claim that the jobs wouldn't be there just doesn't suffice.

Naive because your thinking if flawed and you are more then welcome to explain your position at anytime, but as of yet you haven't. I gave you an example of myself and and my major which is a media study, the study of film and film is considered an art. Another example of of why your thinking is flawed, one of my best friends was a History/ Poly Sci major and within a month of graduating (this past spring) he landed a mid range position at Chase Bank with a salary of $60k+ a year, with no prior experience in banking or sales. Another friend who was a math major/film is has recently moved back home and is working an entry level customer service position at a farming equipment company. Another flaw is that teachers (teaching degrees aka education) don't make a ton of money. You're whole argument is that degrees that have better returns for their dollar should be cheaper to pursue then degrees that you claim don't have as great of a return because the government will collect more tax revenue from those with degrees that you believe will have a better dollar for dollar return in the long run. So based on your claim, I should have paid more money to my university, because I am not going to be making as much money as someone with a degree that you believe will earn more money then mine. If anything I should be paying less. You're arguing for inequality. You're accusing me of flawed argumentation, but you're not saying what the flaw is, explained how I've committed it, or the impact it has on the argument. It seems a little pointless, especially when you have so little backing you. You've been providing unrepresentative evidence/examples too. Is a mid-range job at a bank reflective of a typical media/arts graduate? The answer is pretty simple - no. On the surface, it doesn't seem that he was hired because he had that specific degree. The math major/film doesn't sound very representative of a typical math major graduate either. Do you know anything of their grades? Did the first guy get a first, whereas the second guy got a third? You need to provide more data before any judgement can be cast. Education degrees may not be the most beneficial in financial terms, but they are definitely considerable in social terms. You can't have a lack of teachers and expect a thriving economy in the years to come, whereas you can expect a lack of media/arts persons and still have an thriving economy. I'm accounting for the fact that with media/arts graduates, the top ones will be making the majority of the money so it doesn't matter too much whether it shrinks by 50% (arbitrary figure for illustrative purposes) or not. Its not just the return per dollar. It's about the social necessity of them. It's about considering what happens if we don't have enough doctors, versus what happens if we don't have enough musicians/artists - or other combinations. The trade-off seems simple - take option that maximizes non-media/arts. This doesn't mean that we can't grant exceptions to certain media/arts degrees that are actually very good, like the exceptions that you have pointed out earlier.

Banned for posting so much nonsense.

Or... all three, polyamory advocate ;).

Banned for calling 'sufficient' a big word. It's very commonly used, so to suggest that its a complex, unnecessary term is simply false. EDIT - Banned for the ninja. To clarify - when I ban people, I throw them into my signature.

Since we're on the topic of stairwells/stairs in general, I'd say that I have nothing against shallow steps since I take leaps on them anyway. I have a problem with narrow steps, simply because I'm more likely to fall on them if I misplace my foot.

Banned for assuming that it's a sufficient reason for banning.