.

Sour-Grape

No Enchante, I don't see any 人身攻擊 all along this topic's threads, from the very beginning when Philip started it.

To me, messages here are factual, meaningful, helpful, or even emotional, but NOTHING IS PERSONAL !!!

If you regard any of the messages here personal, please do let us know so that we can adjust our tone and the way of expressing ourselves.

[quote]
Enchante 寫道:
化名人生(身)攻擊

Sour-Grape

Philip,

You mistaken my meaning.

I mean: from the very beginning of this topic, which was started by you on 22/11/2004, I don't see any 人身攻擊 in all the messages.


[quote]
Sour-Grape 寫道:

No Enchante, I don't see any 人身攻擊 all along this topic's threads, from the very beginning when Philip started it.

Mr. Sour-Grape,

請問我又如開始阿？ ?
乜你這個人禁唔大方禁小家架！女人都無你禁小器啊！

小弟弟，you said:''I don't see any 人身攻擊 all along this topic's threads" and then you said "from the very beginning when Philip started it."

I don't see any body all along ----->  then you see Philip at the very begining.

Then I will ask "hilip" 是誰呢？?

In mathematical expression:-

Let A be the set of "人身攻擊"
You said no body all along in A.
i.e. A is {}; where {} is an empty set
then you said there exists an element "hilip" belong to A =  "人身攻擊" (Philip started "人身攻擊")
In other words, "hilip" is an element belong to {}.

Mr. Sour-Grape, 上述邏輯如何成立呢？ ?
What is the logic of this statement? ?
小弟弟，A contradictary statement 喎！
你入U o的 A 如何攞阿？如果考試你這樣答會攞蛋喎！
唔好話比我知你科Maths攞A喎！

Sour-Grape

Enchante feels 有人"化名人生(身)攻擊. As quite a number of voices have joined the discussion, I suppose Enchante refers 有人 to be some of us. That's why I suggest Enchante to identify the messages which is considered personal by him/her, and all of us then try to obviate his/her unpleasant feeling by adjusting our tone.


Philipwhau 寫道:

Sour-Grape 寫道:

If you regard any of the messages here personal, please do let us know so that we can adjust our tone and the way of expressing ourselves.

[/quote]

Mr. Sour-Grape,

You, a single man ----> is singular

Then you said "we can adjust our tone and the way of expressing ourselves."

"We", "our" "ourselves" all these pronouns are plural.

小弟弟，According to Oxford English Grammar book, the first statement is total incompatible with the second statement.喎！

英文文法上出現了問題！

Mr. Sour-Grape, 假如上述邏輯成立？  
then Mr. Sour-Grape should be a plural, i.e. 多過一個人了?  

Enchante 寫道:
有人"化名人生(身)攻擊"這個邏輯便成立了！哈哈！


Is my deduction right?

Eva

有日湊女放學,坐巴士時,聽見有個媽咪也是湊仔放學的,跟對面坐位的家長呻,因為她兒子(我猜測大約中一二左右)在游泳方面(忘了是游泳還是賽跑了)很出色,校方經常要他去練習,有時怎至要因為參賽而加練而不能上課. 因此成績越來越差.她已經多次向校方表示不願意自己的孩子只在某方面出色而沒有平衡的學科方面的成績,但校方還是軟硬兼施地半迫她兒子繼續.她說她不想兒子將來除了游泳/賽跑便一無所有,她認為這是沒有前途的.結果她選擇了轉校.    可是,現在轉去的學校又開始打她兒子的主意,要他入校隊,參加集訓!  看她的樣子真是很憂心但又很無奈似.....

file

Given a set of healthy discussion H, there always exists an object P such that P not belongs to H.

People don't like central allocation.
People don't like selection criteria determined by the school.

What is your perfect allocation method??

Sour-Grape

P and H are too complicated for me, can't understand at all.

But, I think most parents don't like allocation, but prefer selection (parents select school, of course). Then every parent will be happy! But is it feasible?

If employees have the right to choose, I think most employees will choose to have their salary determined by themselves, rather than determined (or mutally agreed) by the employer.


[quote]
file 寫道:
Given a set of healthy discussion H, there always exists an object P such that P not belongs to H.

People don't like central allocation.
People don't like selection criteria determined by the school.

What is your perfect allocation method??

judy

有日湊女放學,坐巴士時,聽見有個媽咪也是湊仔放學的,跟對面坐位的家長呻,因為她兒子(我猜測大約中一二左右)在游泳方面(忘了是游泳還是賽跑了)很出色,校方經常要他去練習,有時怎至要因為參賽而加練而不能上課. 因此成績越來越差.她已經多次向校方表示不願意自己的孩子只在某方面出色而沒有平衡的學科方面的成績,但校方還是軟硬兼施地半迫她兒子繼續.她說她不想兒子將來除了游泳/賽跑便一無所有,她認為這是沒有前途的.結果她選擇了轉校. 可是,現在轉去的學校又開始打她兒子的主意,要他入校隊,參加集訓! 看她的樣子真是很憂心但又很無奈似.....

我阿大有一師姐，讀書麻麻，於是將所有課外時間都投放在球類運動上。但師姐身體條件不佳，不論怎樣努力，在大賽中總是四強止歩。他父母也知其小朋友不是運動員才料，曾對我說：希望進中學後花多點時間在學習上。

師姐上了中學，他爸爸摇頭嘆息：好惨，小學時，比賽輸了，幾個女孩抱頭痛哭，老師總在旁邊安慰。現在呢？輸了比賽，老師面黑黑的，哭都不敢啊。唯有加紧練習

judy

What is your perfect allocation method??

file,

我想，這個topic不是在討論甚麽才是 perfect allocation method?

准确一點，我們在討論教育良心。對不？

Enchante

ykwong 寫道:
恭喜philip,
多D敵人好啊！敵人最願意花時間研究你的弱點，並施以迎頭痛擊。從中令你有所碑益。
Judy 重好，居然有人咁得閒 search 下你以前D野，真係不招人妒是庸才。可喜可賀！定係又係你個位"怨婦"網友？
enchante, 係咁架，呢度規矩：先討論，然後咬文嚼字，跟住單打諷剌。最後人生攻擊。跟住結怨，一有機會就化名加入戰團。玩玩下就慣。
DBboy,
Will it be some changes from past to present? In the past, the school wished their students all human development, while nowadays it is more in segregation approach.
I admire to its past

Hey, sour-grape
Please check it out. I am not the one who said "人生攻擊". I just repeat, link and quote someone's phrase gi ma. Didn't you read this message before?

ykwong

請勿將自己的說話放進我口。我說在BK 討論常發生的情況，並沒有說今次有人人身攻擊。"井底蛙;眼界淺.."這些；仲有數學公式等。現階段來說只是"咬文嚼字和單打諷刺"..我認為。

可否回正題？

Philip 兄,在BK很少人會批評他人的英文文法，除非是開宗明義問英文。最緊要是意思沒被曲解。

Enchante

ykwong,

please double check lah....

I said that:

Enchante 寫道:
爭辯了這麼久，大家可否     discover that there are lots of  新加入國民 to join the arguement and they usually use a difference [language] to express their comment. And 大家可否      found out their styles so familiar with some 國民 lei????
At the same time, you will find that some 國民 will disappear for a short/long time and those 新加入國民
occupied their places woh.
May be I am so ''8'' lah.......     

And you replied that:

ykwong 寫道:
恭喜philip,
多D敵人好啊！敵人最願意花時間研究你的弱點，並施以迎頭痛擊。從中令你有所碑益。
Judy 重好，居然有人咁得閒 search 下你以前D野，真係不招人妒是庸才。可喜可賀！定係又係你個位"怨婦"網友？
enchante, 係咁架，呢度規矩：先討論，然後咬文嚼字，跟住單打諷剌。最後人生攻擊。跟住結怨，一有機會就化名加入戰團。玩玩下就慣。
DBboy,
Will it be some changes from past to present? In the past, the school wished their students all human development, while nowadays it is more in segregation approach.
I admire to its past

Then I replied that from your comment:
((((化名人生攻擊))))

I did NOT say in this forum/topic has somebody 化名人生攻擊.

ykwong

冇氣啦。你請便！

Sour-Grape

Oops!

Sorry, it's my mistake of "putting you on table". It should be someone else.

You have my apologies.


Enchante 寫道:
Hey, sour-grape
Please check it out. I am not the one who said "人生攻擊". I just repeat, link and quote someone's phrase gi ma. Didn't you read this message before?

lamba

由 Sour-Grape 於 2004-11-27 02:13:15:

""" think most employees will choose to have their salary determined by themselves, rather than determined (or mutally agreed) by the employer."""


Sour-Grape,

just a bit side-chatting,

in market economy, salary is determined by the market , neither by employers nor by employees .

hope our "liberal studies" will cover this !

Sour-Grape

Lamba,

You are right, I get your point.

In the "employment game", employers want to pay less while the employees want to get more. Luckily, an external factor, the market, sets in and adjusts the salary.

In the "school game", schools want to choose students, students (well, parents) also want to choose school. In this case, which is the external factor to draw the line for the two?


[quote]
lamba 寫道:
由 Sour-Grape 於 2004-11-27 02:13:15:

""" think most employees will choose to have their salary determined by themselves, rather than determined (or mutally agreed) by the employer."""


Sour-Grape,

just a bit side-chatting,

in market economy, salary is determined by the market , neither by employers nor by employees .

hope our "liberal studies" will cover this !