One more bad point of the "teacher" -- SFXC forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: One more bad point of the "teacher"

Author:
Summer

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:50:20 06/11/03 Wed
In reply to: 「你」老師 's message, "作為中七同學的老師，有點難受了！" on 09:21:33 06/10/03 Tue

The "teacher" said 懂得包容是一種德行, but it depends on what kind of questions you are talking about. To 包容 robbery, rape, murder...... is not a good manner. Hong Kong people are very 包容, so we have a lot of rubbish and saliva on the street. We should learn to become less 包容 now.

And the teacher further give a reason that況且很多時候理虧的在於自己. I don't know if this is his/her experience. But how can you prove the one who does not 包容 is 很多時候理虧?

Mr. Choi Chun Ho argued very long with others about the F7 dinner, you can say he is not包容, but he has very good reason.He is not 理虧. I fully support him.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> Subject: Re: Summer's bad logic

Author:
Perhaps
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 06:33:24 06/11/03 Wed

Summer said: 'The "teacher" said 懂得包容是一種德行, but it dependson what kind of questions you are talking about. To
包容 robbery, rape, murder...... is not a good manner.Hong Kong people are very 包容, so we have a lot of rubbish and saliva on the street. We should learn to become less 包容 now.' Summer has committed the error of adding extra meaning to a concept and attack the straw man.

Summer said, 'And the teacher further give a reason
that況且很多時候理虧的在於自己. I don't know if this
is his/her experience. But how can you prove the one
who does not 包容 is 很多時候理虧?'
Summer has committed the error of distorting the meaning of the "teacher", because the "teacher" just said of '很多時', not '時時'. Besides, Summer has extensively abused the word "prove". Look up the exact meaning of "prove" in 李天命's books, Mr Summer, before u use the word next time.

Summer said, "Mr. Choi Chun Ho argued very long with others about the F7 dinner, you can say he is not包容, but he has
very good reason. He is not 理虧. I fully support him." Here, Summer failed to explain why Choi was reasonable. Neither did he prove why his support to Choi is reasonable. So, his support is groundless, or nonsensical, or emotional.

[> [> Subject: Re: One more bad point of the "teacher"
Author: 人一個 [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 07:50:14 06/11/03 Wed 第一段，係廢話。俾你講一段好casual o既說話，你會唔會下下都分晒全部可能性黎講？人地原意根本就係唔叫你包容一o的強盜、強姦犯、殺人犯。第二段，都係廢話。How can you prove your experience? 第三段，你個人意見而已，不作任何回應。

[> [> Subject:

夏之寒風

Author:
心雲
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:03:16 06/11/03 Wed

>The "teacher" said 懂得包容是一種德行, but it depends
>on what kind of questions you are talking about. To
>包容 robbery, rape, murder...... is not a good manner.
>Hong Kong people are very 包容, so we have a lot of
>rubbish and saliva on the street. We should learn to
>become less 包容 now.

Summer說得很對！那位「你」老師所說的「懂得包容是一種德行」，當然應該depends on what kind of questions (s)he is talking about啦！而「你」老師的留言提及的，是有關是次籌辦謝師宴的事宜，那便當然是depended on that kind of questions s(he) was talking about。既然Summer如此支持「你」老師的言論，大家也應包容一下他語意表達上的不足吧。(糟！We should learn to become less 包容 (him) now.)

>And the teacher further give a reason
>that況且很多時候理虧的在於自己. I don't know if this
>is his/her experience. But how can you prove the one
>who does not 包容 is 很多時候理虧?

「很多」不代表「大部分」。正如「在自助晚宴中，我吃了很多食物。」不等同「在自助晚宴中，我吃了大部分食物。」不論在語文或數學的角度，兩者也沒必要意義等同。故此，根據Summer的Logic學，「很多時候理虧的在於自己」不應是相同於「大部分時候理虧的在於自己」，對嗎？如果總計一生人中，有機會考慮包容或反省的次數，理虧在於自己的實際數字(不是比例上的)是可以說成很多或很少的。然而，Summer也說得有點道理，因為他從不理虧的，理虧的永遠是不支持他的人，所以他的理虧次數是零。而零這個數字相較負數值來說，可以是很多，較正數值來說卻很少。但Summer不多也不少，是「沒有」，故他不贊成那句。

>Mr. Choi Chun Ho argued very long with others about
>the F7 dinner, you can say he is not包容, but he has
>very good reason.He is not 理虧. I fully support him.

不錯！凡事都要有good reason (Summer's logic)。Summer只是忘了提及那些是good reasons和有何good reasons去證明那些是good reasons而已。請(不)要包容他，反正很多時候理虧的(不)在於你們自己。

[> [> [> Subject: 嘩,黃sir
Author: 一一 [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 05:37:08 06/12/03 Thu 嘩,黃sir(唔好扮o野話唔係) 你好陰濕啊! 你彈summer,彈到好似讚o甘,好勁啊~~

[> [> [> [> Subject: 證據
Author: 一一 [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 06:08:45 06/12/03 Thu 證據: http://www.hkedcity.net/ihouse_tools/ihouse.phtml?id=sfx-wcs&pa=