handed to them.

Or did I make that up?

He did not say that you or your classmates are not harworking or ambitious. Look, the message is obviously lost on you. Consider that older, wiser and smarter people have tried to set you straight. Consider that your feeling may be hurt unnecessarily. Consider you may have it wrong. Consider letting it go, like now.

Let me go through this line by line.

"Notre Dame used to be a place where..."

Doesn't "used to be" imply that Notre Dame is no longer the place he describes.

"...hard-working, ambitious people without all the advantages could go, excel and make more of themselves."

Whom is he talking about? Administrators? Quite a stretch, don't you think, to say that he's talking about administrators making "more of themselves". I think the simpler explanation is that he's talking about students.

"Now it is to a large extent a destination spot for entitled people who have had things handed to them."

Yes, entitled and haven't worked for what they've gotten. Those who get to Notre Dame aren't seeking to excel and better themselves. We've reached our destination.

"Good kids, generally, but not of the sort that built the place and defined its ethos."

I'm supposed to believe that he's referring to the administration as "good kids"? Come on. It's simpler, yes, to reason that he's referring to students.



You tell me just where I'm mistaken.

For the record, Andy brought it up.

"Yes, entitled and haven't worked for what they've gotten. Those who get to Notre Dame aren't seeking to excel and better themselves. We've reached our destination."

That's your inferral, he didn't say this

"Good kids, generally, but not of the sort that built the place and defined its ethos."


The place wasn't built in the last few years. My generation is not like my grandfather's generation who went to ND. I don't see how that is controversial.

The real problem is the quoted statement above. You lept from his quote to a conclusion that isn't there.

I don't mind that he says we are different from old students. Yes, we do come from more wealthy backgrounds from the most part. Even I, a son of a single mother who is an accountant, have probably had more advantages than the average Notre Dame student from the first half of the 20th century. But there's no mistaking that he did use the terms "entitled" and "had things handed to them" to describe students today and he did say that we view Notre Dame as a destination spot.

If he was trying to land a blow against the leadership at Notre Dame, he missed with those three sentences and hit the current students and recent grads.

Is that he's trying to say those are the types of people ND is targeting now, and the atmosphere they are attempting to cultivate as well.

Assumptions as mine. You must admit that if one is to believe what you just wrote, he has to read a lot into ndoldtown's post.

But I'm content to leave it alone from here. I really do appreciate you taking the time to explain what you thought of ndoldtown's statements.

Also, Fernando Torres is still a bust. Luckily for your Blues, Chelsea have made a few other smart buys (Meireles, Mata, and Luiz, in particular) that have really saved their bacon.

My feelings certainly aren't hurt. I understand what you guys are saying, and I think it's wrong. I do get that he was making a point about the leadership at Notre Dame, but in doing so, he did make judgments about the students. I'm going to drop it here, because this really is a stupid argument. We're getting nowhere.

If we were 2-0, none of this shit would have ever been brought up.