Another Black Eye for Penn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mother definitely found this site.

Actually I think MF found the site. She is certainly all over twitter posting comments and responses to the NYer story.

Oh she didn’t deactivate her Twitter?

New twitter with pr fingerprints all over it. She's totally shameless or deeply unwell. I hope Penn takes this all the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mother definitely found this site.

Actually I think MF found the site. She is certainly all over twitter posting comments and responses to the NYer story.

Without a doubt, just like it was her spamming the other threads. She's tweeting the same fact checker lines spammed on here today. Must be nice to be a mooching 25 year old professional victim with nothing better to do all day but google yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You aren't allowed to criticize Mackenzie Fierceton's story.

If you do, then one or more of the following applies:
1. You don't know what you are talking about, but if you do, then why do you care so much?
2. You have an axe to grind, but if you don't, then why do you care so much?
3. You can't point to anything she did wrong, but if you can, then why do you care so much?

It's a perfectly closed circle. There is no way to criticize this rank netting of a narrative correctly, according to those defending her here. That's interesting, in and of itself.

Oh please. As someone who had never heard of the story before this week and didn’t participate in prior threads I have to say that the people who seem completely closed off and intent on shutting down conversation are the ones saying she is a con artist.

You might try reading the other threads before passing judgement on whether other posters here are familiar with what is going on.

You also might try reading more of DCUM if you are surprised that people will post for pages after pages on something that seems irrelevant to their own lives. It's kind of the raison d'être for the site. No need to resort to conspiracy theories.

I am sure I have read more of DCUM than you and nowhere did I resort to conspiracy theories so I think it’s interesting how defensive you are in bringing that up, esp in the context of Jeff saying some posters were posting repeatedly.

[Anonymous]

Penn is just wrong. There is no way around that First Gen means her even by its definition. Colleges suck at any legal or disciple issues. If you have a child involved at all, lawyer up with lawyers they can't screw with. If you don't have the money to do that you will be screwed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mother definitely found this site.

Actually I think MF found the site. She is certainly all over twitter posting comments and responses to the NYer story.

Oh she didn’t deactivate her Twitter?

New twitter with pr fingerprints all over it. She's totally shameless or deeply unwell. I hope Penn takes this all the way.

There is no all the way. They will give her her degrees and have to pay her ------- colleges always lose in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You aren't allowed to criticize Mackenzie Fierceton's story.

If you do, then one or more of the following applies:
1. You don't know what you are talking about, but if you do, then why do you care so much?
2. You have an axe to grind, but if you don't, then why do you care so much?
3. You can't point to anything she did wrong, but if you can, then why do you care so much?

It's a perfectly closed circle. There is no way to criticize this rank netting of a narrative correctly, according to those defending her here. That's interesting, in and of itself.

Oh please. As someone who had never heard of the story before this week and didn’t participate in prior threads I have to say that the people who seem completely closed off and intent on shutting down conversation are the ones saying she is a con artist.

+1 (and also just came to this story for the first time today).

I can understand the allegations that she exaggerated her situation in order to gain admission and get aid. I don't get the argument that her entire story is made up. It is corroborated by friends, friends families, teachers at her high school, the police who investigated the abuse allegations, the staff at the hospital where she was treated. I don't understand how you can read this story and conclude she concocted the entire thing and that her mom is an innocent victim and that Penn itself is in no way complicit.

There is no disputing that she wound up in the hospital with a head injury, that she had a history of bruises and injuries consistent with child abuse, that she wound up in the foster care system, and that by the time she arrived at Penn, she was independent and estranged from her mom. I'll also note her mom doesn't dispute that the boyfriend climbed into bed with Mackenzie and groped her, but laughed it off as the boyfriend mistaking her (the mom) for her 15 year old daughter. That's sexual assault on a minor. It's serious. Even if it was truly a case of mistaken identity, that's a huge failure as a parent not to address it immediately. To dismiss it as Mackenzie being dramatic and to assume good intentions by the boyfriend? That's so, so questionable. Especially combined with Mackenzie's medical history. It just seems obvious this person was abused. There is not innocent, "good parent" justification for any of this.

It seems like the most likely explanation is that she is an abuse survivor who either purposefully manipulated things like the definition of "first generation" in order to gain access to an education she could not otherwise afford, or she honestly didn't know. Either way, she's not a "master manipulator" and she didn't take advantage of anyone. She survived abuse and parental neglect and used tools at her disposal to try and rebuild her life. Her villainization in the press is alarming. Even if you think what she did was wrong, it's not MORE wrong than what was done to her as a child.

Perspective, people.

100% this. Thank you, PP. She was a kid. Her mother is bad person and worse parent. Penn will be proven to have royally f-ed this up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You aren't allowed to criticize Mackenzie Fierceton's story.

If you do, then one or more of the following applies:
1. You don't know what you are talking about, but if you do, then why do you care so much?
2. You have an axe to grind, but if you don't, then why do you care so much?
3. You can't point to anything she did wrong, but if you can, then why do you care so much?

It's a perfectly closed circle. There is no way to criticize this rank netting of a narrative correctly, according to those defending her here. That's interesting, in and of itself.

Oh please. As someone who had never heard of the story before this week and didn’t participate in prior threads I have to say that the people who seem completely closed off and intent on shutting down conversation are the ones saying she is a con artist.

You might try reading the other threads before passing judgement on whether other posters here are familiar with what is going on.

You also might try reading more of DCUM if you are surprised that people will post for pages after pages on something that seems irrelevant to their own lives. It's kind of the raison d'être for the site. No need to resort to conspiracy theories.

I am sure I have read more of DCUM than you and nowhere did I resort to conspiracy theories so I think it’s interesting how defensive you are in bringing that up, esp in the context of Jeff saying some posters were posting repeatedly.

"Why do you care so much?" Closed circle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mother definitely found this site.

Actually I think MF found the site. She is certainly all over twitter posting comments and responses to the NYer story.

Oh she didn’t deactivate her Twitter?

New twitter with pr fingerprints all over it. She's totally shameless or deeply unwell. I hope Penn takes this all the way.

There is no all the way. They will give her her degrees and have to pay her ------- colleges always lose in the end.

Why would Penn pay her a dime when they have the goods. Nobody is fooled by her white privilege fake victim rhetoric and smokescreens. Congrats to her for duping a childless boomer cat lady professor, who appears to be basking in the glory of this on twitter. But these delusions and the dopamine from 50 twitter likes is short lived and not reality. A jury of common people are going to see this is a rich spoiled rotten schemer from a mile away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mother definitely found this site.

Actually I think MF found the site. She is certainly all over twitter posting comments and responses to the NYer story.

Without a doubt, just like it was her spamming the other threads. She's tweeting the same fact checker lines spammed on here today. Must be nice to be a mooching 25 year old professional victim with nothing better to do all day but google yourself.

Wow, so much victim blaming on this thread. Disgusting. No wonder abused people don't come out and share their stories. It's people like you PPs who contribute to such an environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You aren't allowed to criticize Mackenzie Fierceton's story.

If you do, then one or more of the following applies:
1. You don't know what you are talking about, but if you do, then why do you care so much?
2. You have an axe to grind, but if you don't, then why do you care so much?
3. You can't point to anything she did wrong, but if you can, then why do you care so much?

It's a perfectly closed circle. There is no way to criticize this rank netting of a narrative correctly, according to those defending her here. That's interesting, in and of itself.

Oh please. As someone who had never heard of the story before this week and didn’t participate in prior threads I have to say that the people who seem completely closed off and intent on shutting down conversation are the ones saying she is a con artist.

+1 (and also just came to this story for the first time today).

I can understand the allegations that she exaggerated her situation in order to gain admission and get aid. I don't get the argument that her entire story is made up. It is corroborated by friends, friends families, teachers at her high school, the police who investigated the abuse allegations, the staff at the hospital where she was treated. I don't understand how you can read this story and conclude she concocted the entire thing and that her mom is an innocent victim and that Penn itself is in no way complicit.

There is no disputing that she wound up in the hospital with a head injury, that she had a history of bruises and injuries consistent with child abuse, that she wound up in the foster care system, and that by the time she arrived at Penn, she was independent and estranged from her mom. I'll also note her mom doesn't dispute that the boyfriend climbed into bed with Mackenzie and groped her, but laughed it off as the boyfriend mistaking her (the mom) for her 15 year old daughter. That's sexual assault on a minor. It's serious. Even if it was truly a case of mistaken identity, that's a huge failure as a parent not to address it immediately. To dismiss it as Mackenzie being dramatic and to assume good intentions by the boyfriend? That's so, so questionable. Especially combined with Mackenzie's medical history. It just seems obvious this person was abused. There is not innocent, "good parent" justification for any of this.

It seems like the most likely explanation is that she is an abuse survivor who either purposefully manipulated things like the definition of "first generation" in order to gain access to an education she could not otherwise afford, or she honestly didn't know. Either way, she's not a "master manipulator" and she didn't take advantage of anyone. She survived abuse and parental neglect and used tools at her disposal to try and rebuild her life. Her villainization in the press is alarming. Even if you think what she did was wrong, it's not MORE wrong than what was done to her as a child.

Perspective, people.

100% this. Thank you, PP. She was a kid. Her mother is bad person and worse parent. Penn will be proven to have royally f-ed this up.

+1

Can't believe all the people glossing over the child abuse. Who takes the side of a mother who claims her daughter fell down the steps several times, once while she was removing gum from her hair...at the top of the steps? And claims her boyfriend mistook her daughter for her, and laughs about it? What kind of mother does that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Penn is just wrong. There is no way around that First Gen means her even by its definition. Colleges suck at any legal or disciple issues. If you have a child involved at all, lawyer up with lawyers they can't screw with. If you don't have the money to do that you will be screwed.

No. Go back and read. The first fraudulent move was Questbridge which supported her application as a a first-gen. That was her first act of fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You aren't allowed to criticize Mackenzie Fierceton's story.

If you do, then one or more of the following applies:
1. You don't know what you are talking about, but if you do, then why do you care so much?
2. You have an axe to grind, but if you don't, then why do you care so much?
3. You can't point to anything she did wrong, but if you can, then why do you care so much?

It's a perfectly closed circle. There is no way to criticize this rank netting of a narrative correctly, according to those defending her here. That's interesting, in and of itself.

Oh please. As someone who had never heard of the story before this week and didn’t participate in prior threads I have to say that the people who seem completely closed off and intent on shutting down conversation are the ones saying she is a con artist.

You might try reading the other threads before passing judgement on whether other posters here are familiar with what is going on.

You also might try reading more of DCUM if you are surprised that people will post for pages after pages on something that seems irrelevant to their own lives. It's kind of the raison d'être for the site. No need to resort to conspiracy theories.

I am sure I have read more of DCUM than you and nowhere did I resort to conspiracy theories so I think it’s interesting how defensive you are in bringing that up, esp in the context of Jeff saying some posters were posting repeatedly.

"Why do you care so much?" Closed circle.

Interesting take. One day the trial will be over. I’d like to know what happened but don’t want to enter the closed circle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Penn is just wrong. There is no way around that First Gen means her even by its definition. Colleges suck at any legal or disciple issues. If you have a child involved at all, lawyer up with lawyers they can't screw with. If you don't have the money to do that you will be screwed.

No. Go back and read. The first fraudulent move was Questbridge which supported her application as a a first-gen. That was her first act of fraud.

Exactly. And even before that, note in the New Yorker piece she claims a college counselor at $30k yr Whitfield School randomly first told her she technically qualified for Questbridge. And she just randomly stumbled into the FGLI group her first semester at Penn. And she just randomly met a Rhodes Scholar who randomly encouraged her to apply. And she just carelessly retweeted articles she claims were full of falsehoods. Every ruthless choreographed move she made she tries to pass off like someone casually and randomly told her or it was just purely serendipitous she stumbled upon something or just an accident. Sort of like Stanford Duck Syndrome. She's trying really hard to look carefree, as if she's not trying really hard and playing every angle and exploiting people. It's so obvious and happens over and over and over. Seems like a tactic to try and deflect from the fact she's a calculated schemer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Penn is just wrong. There is no way around that First Gen means her even by its definition. Colleges suck at any legal or disciple issues. If you have a child involved at all, lawyer up with lawyers they can't screw with. If you don't have the money to do that you will be screwed.

No. Go back and read. The first fraudulent move was Questbridge which supported her application as a a first-gen. That was her first act of fraud.

What fraud? Did you read both Questbridge’s and Penn’s definition of first gen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Penn is just wrong. There is no way around that First Gen means her even by its definition. Colleges suck at any legal or disciple issues. If you have a child involved at all, lawyer up with lawyers they can't screw with. If you don't have the money to do that you will be screwed.

No. Go back and read. The first fraudulent move was Questbridge which supported her application as a a first-gen. That was her first act of fraud.

Exactly. And even before that, note in the New Yorker piece she claims a college counselor at $30k yr Whitfield School randomly first told her she technically qualified for Questbridge. And she just randomly stumbled into the FGLI group her first semester at Penn. And she just randomly met a Rhodes Scholar who randomly encouraged her to apply. And she just carelessly retweeted articles she claims were full of falsehoods. Every ruthless choreographed move she made she tries to pass off like someone casually and randomly told her or it was just purely serendipitous she stumbled upon something or just an accident. Sort of like Stanford Duck Syndrome. She's trying really hard to look carefree, as if she's not trying really hard and playing every angle and exploiting people. It's so obvious and happens over and over and over. Seems like a tactic to try and deflect from the fact she's a calculated schemer.

You're making the case for how smart she is, that as an abused high school student she had the wherewithal and intelligence to discover the way to get into school through the organization Questbridge, which most high school students don't even know about.

Also I doubt she's had a carefree moment in her life. When you're an abused kid that's just not possible.