王偉雄：College 和 University的區別

slamai

回覆 shadeslayer 的帖子

Did you say "just tutorials" in your post?  Ever heard of "collections" as I have mentioned in one of my previous posts if you said you'd been to Oxford?  Do you understand what is a sweeping statement?

SorTo

Oxford says this in their website, "‘Tutor’ is Oxford’s name for a member of academic staff. They are often world-leading experts in their field, and tutorials are a chance to get individualised teaching from them. "

I feel muggles like us have been lied to for over all these years about the understatement of the name of an oxbridge tutor.

slamai

回覆 SorTo 的帖子

Oxford also points out the crux in their website, i.e. "Tutorials are central to study at Oxford."  Bang!

shadeslayer

Believe what you want to believe. There is one and only one point in this discussion. There were graduate students hired as tutors to teach undergraduates at a particular college over that period of time in Oxford, therefore the statement "Tutors are not graduate students in Oxbridge" is incorrect.  Anything else is irrelevant and possibly a diversion tactic.

I don't know why I am still spending time on this topic.

shadeslayer

永遠的零 發表於 15-6-10 20:31
回覆 shadeslayer 的帖子

有人連最基本的邏輯辯証原則都未懂，竞然還夠膽出來死撐，枉有高學歷又有乜用， ...

閣下心水清。哈，佢地講咁耐也講不出我這句的弱點，卻比你點中。

小小山

What is college ? What is university ?

slamai

回覆 shadeslayer 的帖子

Ha! Ha!  Do you really think that I didn't know the discrepancies in your previous statements/posts?

Don't divert attention! Sounds familiar?  You haven't answered my questions!

slamai

回覆 永遠的零 的帖子

Maybe you are very good in Maths and want to discuss logic.  However, you have totally missed the point.  What you are querying my generalised statement applies similarly to what Oxford says in their website.  Take a look at what SorTo quoted in his post #22.  

I have explained that my statements, which also happen to most of us, may be incomplete due to generalisation.  How come you said I didn't "承認那statement未夠精準"?  Have you gone through the relevant posts carefully?  The quality and validity of your comments is doubtful.

SorTo

slamai 發表於 15-6-11 12:52
回覆 永遠的零 的帖子

Maybe you are very good in Maths and want to discuss logic.  However, you have ...

That's why I said Oxford is lying according to these two guys who just choose to ignore the fact that the phase "in general" is often omitted from general statements in our daily language. According to the philosophy department of hku, in statements like"「人死不能復生。」,「人不為己，天誅地滅。」, 「男兒志在四方。」...我們對這些述句屬全稱述句(universal propositions) 還是特稱述句(particular propositions)可能並不太清楚。" If we want the readers to be sure we are making a universal proposition, we will add a determiner like "all" or "every"; this is syllogism 101. As you have not used the word "all" or "every", clearly it is only you as the writer who has the right to clarify whether you are making a universal statement or not.

However I suggest you quit a discussion you can never win with opponents who are not interested in a reasonable discussion.