Does this post offend you?
-
Realise that you are twisting words yet again. In no way did the logic I stated used the word similar. A is similar to B is different from A is B.
Twisting words yet again to suit your own objectives eh.
And you are yet again taking a different logic again. Sure, A&B and C&D are mutually exclusive; you don't conclude the relationship between C & D because of A & B. But that's not what was done here at all.
Let me state to you in a way that your stupid brain can analyse:
An engineer is concerned with blah blah blah means that an engineer can do other things that does not concern with blah blah blah as well.
Let see wat is the statement u wrote
a professor is a qualified expert" is an inadequate explanation of what a professor is.
With your same logic, you will have nailed yourself a 2nd time on the statement that "an engineer is concerned with blah blah blah" because clearly, an engineer will also contain characteristics (or in other words, do other things) that is not included in the subset of pple concerned with blah blah blah
There r 2 group of people here, professor and engineer. Now a professor is not totally identical to an enginner ? NO. They r mutually exclusive group of people. And wat do u do ? U used the argument on professor for engineer. R they the same ? NO. So wat is your point ? The definition of a professor is more than "qualified expert", u refuse to add in more meaning to it and play with twisted logic and then conclude the same thing to an engineer which is completely different to to its definition etc.
Talking about twisting, u r the one tat twist logic and other people's word
What rubbish again. Your logic is already wrong, as pointed out when you said that from A is B doesn't mean B is A means A contains characteristics, it merely means that the statement that "an engineer is concerned with blah blah blah" because clearly, an engineer will also contain characteristics (or in other words, do other things) that is not included in the subset of pple concerned with blah blah blah.
Wat r u really writing here ? Utterly confusing. I told u before
A belongs to a group labeled as B. Tat doesn't mean A must not have extra characteristics more than B. So wat is your answer to tat ? Nothing. Wat is wrong with it ? Nothing.
The wrong thing is u claim "professor is a qualified expert, then qualified expert is not an occupation and professor is not an occupation" This is a logical error and it shows how stupid u r
And wat happened to your process engineer, software engineer etc ? Wat examples have u shown ? NONE.
What rubbish again. Your logic is already wrong, as pointed out when you said that from A is B doesn't mean B is A means A contains characteristics, it merely means that the statement that "an engineer is concerned with blah blah blah" because clearly, an engineer will also contain characteristics (or in other words, do other things) that is not included in the subset of pple concerned with blah blah blah.
From there, all your previous logics are gone. Poof! Vanished. There's already no need to reply you all those because it is clear that your logic is haywired. You have truly nailed yourself to the wall.
And ya, if a company states that they want to employ a software engineer as a sweeper, then yes, the sweeper is a software engineer.
And one more thing, you have not yet explained how teachers are excluded from your definitions. They do face technical constraints in delivering their presentations you know?
I asked u before, wat happened to the rest of the answer and u pop up utter rubbish tat has no connection with the original statement ? Wat has your above chunk of rubbish got to do with me asking u to reply the reply on 16 Sep 926 ? Why u cannot answer to them ? Speechless already ?
Again u have shown yourself to be stupid in tis logic
if a company states that they want to employ a software engineer as a sweeper, then yes, the sweeper is a software engineer
Is tat your idea of wat an occupation is ? So I employ a student union president to drive a taxi, he is a president and not a taxi driver ? Tat is why your logic is nonsensical. If I employ a software engineer to be a sweeper, he is a sweeper. Full stop.
All you can manage still is to explain your 'evidences' and 'tons of evidence' as describing the job scopes of an occupation, hence still using the above logic. Do try again.
U fail to read the full paragraph ba ! A professor can be a form of address. I do not deny it. However a professor is an occupation too. Why don't u answer the point of
1) University give the job title of professor to many individuals. So they r not occupation ?
2) The name card of professor write "professor" as their job title. They do nto know wat they r doing ?
3) wiki has mentioned people employed as lecturer in university as the job "professor". u give a rubbish statement saying they employ the man and not the job which is again another nonsense from u
4) They say the professor can do things like teaches at school etc which u clearly ignore and claim these r not job
5) I told u have to read and understand the paragraph in totality and absence of the word occupation odesn't mean it is not. Otherwise the whole definition will be stupid by including common sense like the professor must be a thinking sentinent etc
Using your exact same logic, when NSPE gives the definition, they never explicitly state that the skill of education is not equally important for an engineer as well. In fact, NSPE itself is heavily involved in the education of engineers, and even in it's ethics, it encourages engineers to impart knowledge.
So who are you again to say the skill of education is not equally important? Just because it was not stated explicitly?????
Wat same logic. U see u r linking 2 completely different things together again. U r claiming simple and stupid things like professor is not an occupation which is already mentioned in the page. Now u r claiming for something different. U claim education is having the same importance as solving practical problems. WRONG. U can say education is important BUT not conclude it is more important than solving practical problems for an engineer. I have repeated the argument below repeatedly which u refuse to answer.
Solving the problem is more important than educating. Without the thing to educate, how r u gonna educate ? Even u acknowledge the above before and now flip flop and say it is wrong
Till now, you are still telling me: A is B, so how can A be C?
Compare this to A is B doesn't mean B is A.Do note that I'm talking about only 2 variables. Is there any reason why you fail to understand, and consistently go out of point to use 3 variables?
U just refuse to answer the main point of the argument
a professor is a qualified expert, how can a professor thus be an occupation
I change the word "professor" to be a "teacher" here and "qualified expert" to be "man".
Then the statement becomes
a teacher is a man, how can a teacher thus be an occupation ?
So is shows how stupid your argument is. However u refuse to comment on the example and talk about something completely different to confuse the people. Wat have u got to say for the above ?
Again, an engineer is concerned with blah blah blah. However, someone concerned with blah blah blah can mean many other things, such as teachers, etc. All the characteristics of an engineer need not be reflected in your statement of being concerned with blah blah blah, except that one.
Wat blah blah blah r u talking about ? Why don't u practise to write normally before u make a comment ?
Notice how you missed all the key words I bolded for you? Let me repeat to you the words:
1) Concrete solutions, not opinions with the word 'probably'
2) Easily verified and checked by the surfer on the spot (the only way to verify first-hand in your case is to go enrol into it yourself)Btw, one should always doubt it too, because that is how a inquisitive and smart brain works. Don't remain spoonfed and think everything must definitely be right, be it from books written by professors or websites. My NUS class have cases in which a textbook published by a well-known overseas professor was a little wrong, and we emailed to confirm with him.
1) Probably is already a very strong word used. It already is an evidence tat show oral exams r more easier than written exams. However u just play with the word instead of understanding the whole statement
2) The statement made by the school is already the verification. U think everybody is so free to experience everything themselves ? Wat do u have on the other hand ? NOTHING.
Sure, it is wise not to believe people but looking at the claims u made and the claims the school made, which is more valid ? U think u have more credibility than the school ?
You only need 2 clicks to access the certs. Sure, it might be fake, but you can easily call and check it out, both the webmaster and NUS. At least it's a much simpler and better comparison
Why don't u put your website here and let people take a look at your so called beneficial to society webpage ?
Suits you, if you think that Google is that dumb to allow you to put a virus into their blogger server.
Using your logic, if Warren Buffett donates a large portion of his wealth to charity, it is to be doubted as well because he definitely has some secret motives we do not know about?????
And using your logic, when PAP gives Growth dividends to help the poor, it is to be doubted as well! Who knows if they are really buying votes?
And finally, I have already mentioned that I do not need pple to trust my website. Any reason why you can still be so spastic to ask me "why should people trust yours"?
Well, u doubted the words of a university but believe warren buffett donate a large portion of wealth to charity. Did u call the charity and verify ? Did u know he has no ulterior moltives such as gaining fame ? And why do u trust singapore when they say they give out growth dividend to evry singaporean ? U got call up every singaporean and asked ? I thought u proposed people to experience it firsthand than can u conclude it is true. Why don't u go and conclude the growth dividend by asking all the singaporean ? Tis is according to your nonsense logic of denying information provided by the university. I think the spastic people is u.
It's up to them to do so. Whether the content is rubbish is for everyone else to judge. As I have already said, the surfer can easily check and verify everything, all by himself.
And well, since it is in Singapore for Singapore, I have already said that the contacts are there. 2 clicks, that's all you need.
Wat clicks do u mean ? According to u, the websites cannot be trusted. Any click on the internet will not result in a confirmed answer. U can only verify by experiencing first hand according to your nonsensical claims. So did everybody experience u going to NUS and study ? No right ? Since since they did not experienced it how to verify ?
Till now, you still cannot tell me what gives the webmaster the qualifications to assure you that it is definitely true?
Because tis is the official webpage of the school. Based on your idiotic logic, nothing on the web can be trusted
As I have already said in point 4, I do not need them to trust. They have the right to judge from the full content. And again, they can do that easily because it is concrete solutions in which they can easily check and verify all by themselves, first-hand.
So how to verify u study NUS, they follow u to study ? How to judge u wrote the webpage ? They see u personally code it in ? How do we know the person is actually u ? See u log into sgforums and write ? Come on man... there is no way to first hand verify all in the internet and asking people to do tat is just plain spastic
Note that you still cannot tell me engineering is definitely fun because NUS website states so.
Now you are telling me I'm wrong because TUD website states that it is probably so.
Either you are confused with words, or you are still practicing double standards.
U r making a mistake here. I told u engineering can be fun and tat is already enough. Why do u have to force me to say it is definitely fun ? The fact engineering can be fun is already good for the statement "Engineering is fun". U have a problem with tat ? And TUD website says u r wrong is already more substantial than your lousy claims. If u talk about practising double standard, u r practising no standard at all
-
I'm going to only answer just one of your posts because it's already obvious you are back to your MO of using stupid logics to answer after being caught square in your own world and game of patience and tolerance. You have also clearly demonstrated a lack of comprehension and selective reading.
Why don't u put your website here and let people take a look at your so called beneficial to society webpage ?
This particular question from you is perfect proof that you have problem reading and comprehending, because I remembered very very very clearly telling you how to access the website when I told you to google it.
In addition, I have also posted the exact link to the site in the previous page. Really selective reading from you. Maybe you want to tell me you come into this thread to read only my posts to you, but not my posts to anyone else? Wow...
What this question also show is that you attempted to argue and put forward points even though you have totally no idea what is going on (which in this case, my website). It's already very obvious when you dumbly attempt to argue against the German oral exams. Now you demonstrate it again.
These two points really show game over for you. It's little wonder now why you can misinterpret me on a consistent basis.
P.S. This website is also already present in the stickies of homework forum, which of course I wouldn't have expected you to visit. Afterall, your main objective is to lure pple to play games of patience and tolerance, and not to help anyone.
-
Why don't you prove all the 8 points you have said by quotations? Because especially for points 5 and 6, those were from you, not me. Don't go and take your stupid logics and fallacies and put it into my mouth.
1) he claims software engineer can just use software applications. In tis way my son who plays game is a software engineer
For a software engineer that does graphic designing in windows using Photoshop as part of a team, which part of his job scope encompasses computer science and maths?
Software engineering is the application of a systematic, disciplined, quantifiable approach to the development, operation, and maintenance of software
1) Using photoshop is considered as operation of software.
2) Photoshop is not only for beautifying things here and there. Don't talk rubbish and take only 1 aspect of photoshop to prove a general point.
3) Your understanding of graphic designers is flawed
Look at your underlined words. U underline "operation" and "software" and then proceed with saying using photoshop is operation of software and say because of tis, software engineer can do the whole day just using photoshop which is clearly a spastic remark.
2) He claims professor is not an occupation. He say it despite many or all universities and name cards show people refering their job as professor.
Professors are merely legal titles and a form of address. An engineer with the title of "Professor" coaches new engineering students; his main job is education. He is still an engineer.
3) He claims all website cannot be trusted. He had said tat TUM official website is not to be trusted, a website informing other people of their experience is not to be trusted and even wiki is not to be trusted while his claims can
You are still trying to tell us that some statements from the university websites is indeed much much more accurate than what was experienced first hand???
You have not even proved yet that the info you got from the university is a much more accurate description, and you are asking me whether I'm more qualified to talk about it as compared to the university?
Now you haven't even provide proper proof that your source of info is indeed more accurate than a first-hand encounter
And you are asking me to prove a first-hand encounter when yours is merely 3rd party info????????
Not 3rd party info? Are you joking? You see it on a website, then you post it out and tell me it is not 3rd party info???
Are you going to believe the website, or someone who has come back from there and experienced everything first hand?
Your logic of using the website to substantiate is already flawed.
You are still telling us that you believe the webmaster of the website (of whom you have no idea about at all) more than a person with first hand experience? Are you very sure the webmaster is the expert that you are claiming?
4) He felt the definition made by the board of professional engineer on their job to be badly defined and want to define the word for them. He think he knows their job better than the board of professional engineer
There's a reason why your strict definition from wiki is limited and does not encompass everything.
You know what's limiting you in your wiki definition of an engineer? That's because they took their primary source of definition from a Professional Engineers Board.
Prove wiki to be wrong? All the while, I have been telling you the definition is inadequate.
5) he make logical errors such as saying ' A is similar to B and C is similar to D. If A is found to have some difference with B, then C has the same problem with D". He do not know wat is mutually exclusive.
a professor is a qualified expert" is an inadequate explanation of what a professor is. With your same logic, you will have nailed yourself a 2nd time on the statement that "an engineer is concerned with blah blah blah" because clearly, an engineer will also contain characteristics (or in other words, do other things) that is not included in the subset of pple concerned with blah blah blah
6) He make the error of saying "professor is a qualified expert and since qualified expert is not an occupation a professor is not an occupation". Using his logic, then a teacher is a man and a man is not an occupation. A teacher is not an occupation.
Are you really that dumb? It is already stated clearly in black and white that a professor is a qualified expert.
So, is a qualified expert an occupation?
7) he kept telling people "educating" is as important as "work". However without result to show, he cannot educate. If he cannot repair the machine, he cannot educate. If he cannot find the source of problem he cannot educate. He refused to comment on tis point.
Then wat other EQUALLY IMPORTANT skills have u successfully stated ?
The skill of educating, the job scope of education.
When I have already told (and replied) you that I did not deny that you need to have research results to publish, but it is equally important to be able to publish and educate
8) he had made error in referencing other people claims and then insist his conclusion based on the wrong evidence. He claims I make 2500 when I never specifically mentioned tis and he have to apologise for it
1) I admit being wrong to throw a personal insult on you based on your salary earlier (and on a wrong number somemore). That's pretty uncouth of me, I admit.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
1) he claims software engineer can just use software applications. In tis way my son who plays game is a software engineer
For a software engineer that does graphic designing in windows using Photoshop as part of a team, which part of his job scope encompasses computer science and maths?
Software engineering is the application of a systematic, disciplined, quantifiable approach to the development, operation, and maintenance of software
1) Using photoshop is considered as operation of software.
2) Photoshop is not only for beautifying things here and there. Don't talk rubbish and take only 1 aspect of photoshop to prove a general point.
3) Your understanding of graphic designers is flawed
Look at your underlined words. U underline "operation" and "software" and then proceed with saying using photoshop is operation of software and say because of tis, software engineer can do the whole day just using photoshop which is clearly a spastic remark.
2) He claims professor is not an occupation. He say it despite many or all universities and name cards show people refering their job as professor.
Professors are merely legal titles and a form of address. An engineer with the title of "Professor" coaches new engineering students; his main job is education. He is still an engineer.
3) He claims all website cannot be trusted. He had said tat TUM official website is not to be trusted, a website informing other people of their experience is not to be trusted and even wiki is not to be trusted while his claims can
You are still trying to tell us that some statements from the university websites is indeed much much more accurate than what was experienced first hand???
You have not even proved yet that the info you got from the university is a much more accurate description, and you are asking me whether I'm more qualified to talk about it as compared to the university?
Now you haven't even provide proper proof that your source of info is indeed more accurate than a first-hand encounter
And you are asking me to prove a first-hand encounter when yours is merely 3rd party info????????
Not 3rd party info? Are you joking? You see it on a website, then you post it out and tell me it is not 3rd party info???
Are you going to believe the website, or someone who has come back from there and experienced everything first hand?
Your logic of using the website to substantiate is already flawed.
You are still telling us that you believe the webmaster of the website (of whom you have no idea about at all) more than a person with first hand experience? Are you very sure the webmaster is the expert that you are claiming?
4) He felt the definition made by the board of professional engineer on their job to be badly defined and want to define the word for them. He think he knows their job better than the board of professional engineer
There's a reason why your strict definition from wiki is limited and does not encompass everything.
You know what's limiting you in your wiki definition of an engineer? That's because they took their primary source of definition from a Professional Engineers Board.
Prove wiki to be wrong? All the while, I have been telling you the definition is inadequate.
5) he make logical errors such as saying ' A is similar to B and C is similar to D. If A is found to have some difference with B, then C has the same problem with D". He do not know wat is mutually exclusive.
a professor is a qualified expert" is an inadequate explanation of what a professor is. With your same logic, you will have nailed yourself a 2nd time on the statement that "an engineer is concerned with blah blah blah" because clearly, an engineer will also contain characteristics (or in other words, do other things) that is not included in the subset of pple concerned with blah blah blah
6) He make the error of saying "professor is a qualified expert and since qualified expert is not an occupation a professor is not an occupation". Using his logic, then a teacher is a man and a man is not an occupation. A teacher is not an occupation.
Are you really that dumb? It is already stated clearly in black and white that a professor is a qualified expert.
So, is a qualified expert an occupation?
7) he kept telling people "educating" is as important as "work". However without result to show, he cannot educate. If he cannot repair the machine, he cannot educate. If he cannot find the source of problem he cannot educate. He refused to comment on tis point.
The skill of educating, the job scope of education.
When I have already told (and replied) you that I did not deny that you need to have research results to publish, but it is equally important to be able to publish and educate
8) he had made error in referencing other people claims and then insist his conclusion based on the wrong evidence. He claims I make 2500 when I never specifically mentioned tis and he have to apologise for it
1) I admit being wrong to throw a personal insult on you based on your salary earlier (and on a wrong number somemore). That's pretty uncouth of me, I admit.
Quoted to store as further proof of your illogical mind, especially for points 5 and 6, even though it has been explained to you.
As I have said, you have already demonstrated selective reading and comprehension. I'm not going to further explain to you where your quotations and your conclusions didn't tally at all, because I have already clearly explained why. This only shows that you didn't bother to fully read and comprehend before shooting off your mouth (countless times).
Anyway, good job spending so much time reading through everything. I'm sure your time is pretty much worthless anyway to do things like what Gazelle liked to do. :D
-
I'm going to only answer just one of your posts because it's already obvious you are back to your MO of using stupid logics to answer after being caught square in your own world and game of patience and tolerance. You have also clearly demonstrated a lack of comprehension and selective reading.
So u finnally u realise u become speechless and decide to give up and admit your stupidity ? If u think there is something wrong with the logic, then point it out instead of giving out animalistic grunts again.
This particular question from you is perfect proof that you have problem reading and comprehending, because I remembered very very very clearly telling you how to access the website when I told you to google it.
U mean the statement
Oh ya, do a google search for ExamWorld ;)
Did u state anything inside tis other than ordering me to go there ? How do I know tat is not a virus spot or something. There is nothing wrong with my comprehension skill but rather your composition skill
What this question also show is that you attempted to argue and put forward points even though you have totally no idea what is going on (which in this case, my website). It's already very obvious when you dumbly attempt to argue against the German oral exams. Now you demonstrate it again.
I know of a few things and tat is enough. U start a website. Now tat is all tat is to matter here isn't it ?
-
Quoted to store as further proof of your illogical mind, especially for points 5 and 6, even though it has been explained to you.
As I have said, you have already demonstrated selective reading and comprehension. I'm not going to further explain to you where your quotations and your conclusions didn't tally at all, because I have already clearly explained why. This only shows that you didn't bother to fully read and comprehend before shooting off your mouth (countless times).
Anyway, good job spending so much time reading through everything. I'm sure your time is pretty much worthless anyway to do things like what Gazelle liked to do. :D
It is easy to just search in the webpage. So u already admitted u make stupid insensible errors all the while ? Well proves wat a stupid and limited mind u have
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
So u finnally u realise u become speechless and decide to give up and admit your stupidity ? If u think there is something wrong with the logic, then point it out instead of giving out animalistic grunts again.
U mean the statement
Oh ya, do a google search for ExamWorld ;)
Did u state anything inside tis other than ordering me to go there ? How do I know tat is not a virus spot or something. There is nothing wrong with my comprehension skill but rather your composition skill
I know of a few things and tat is enough. U start a website. Now tat is all tat is to matter here isn't it ?
So u finnally u realise u become speechless and decide to give up and admit your stupidity ? If u think there is something wrong with the logic, then point it out instead of giving out animalistic grunts again.
Yup. I'm really speechless about your persistent stupidity and limited views. I admit my stupidity in attempting to drive logic into an illogical person like you who has declared that he's interested in games of patience and tolerance, but not discussions.
U mean the statement
Oh ya, do a google search for ExamWorld ;)
Did u state anything inside tis other than ordering me to go there ? How do I know tat is not a virus spot or something. There is nothing wrong with my comprehension skill but rather your composition skill
Never read carefully ah. Do try again:
This particular question from you is perfect proof that you have problem reading and comprehending, because I remembered very very very clearly telling you how to access the website when I told you to google it.
In addition, I have also posted the exact link to the site in the previous page. Really selective reading from you. Maybe you want to tell me you come into this thread to read only my posts to you, but not my posts to anyone else? Wow...
What this question also show is that you attempted to argue and put forward points even though you have totally no idea what is going on (which in this case, my website). It's already very obvious when you dumbly attempt to argue against the German oral exams. Now you demonstrate it again.
These two points really show game over for you. It's little wonder now why you can misinterpret me on a consistent basis.
I know of a few things and tat is enough. U start a website. Now tat is all tat is to matter here isn't it ?
So you are telling me, by only knowing a few things out of many many points, you will already have known enough to put forward convincing points?????
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
It is easy to just search in the webpage. So u already admitted u make stupid insensible errors all the while ? Well proves wat a stupid and limited mind u have
Did I admit? Where?
Or twisting words and logic, then putting them in my mouth, as usual?
-
Yup. I'm really speechless about your persistent stupidity and limited views. I admit my stupidity in attempting to drive logic into an illogical person like you who has declared that he's interested in games of patience and tolerance, but not discussions.
I am discussing with u isn't it ? I have listed my argument, logic and show the things u have quoted and used it for argument. I have shown website, sources and information. On the other hand u try to be stupid and argue over established definition tat resuted in making u a stupid monkey being played around here and there.
Never read carefully ah. Do try again:
Nothing in tat report says about examworld as a website u had formed. Nothing. So something wrong with your composition skill and comprehension skill ?
So you are telling me, by only knowing a few things out of many many points, you will already have known enough to put forward convincing points?????
U tell me u cannot trust website, and u r forming a website on your own. Isn't tat already an irony in itself ?
-
U keep silent after I show the evidence. Wat else can be concluded ?
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I am discussing with u isn't it ? I have listed my argument, logic and show the things u have quoted and used it for argument. I have shown website, sources and information. On the other hand u try to be stupid and argue over established definition tat resuted in making u a stupid monkey being played around here and there.
Nothing in tat report says about examworld as a website u had formed. Nothing. So something wrong with your composition skill and comprehension skill ?
U tell me u cannot trust website, and u r forming a website on your own. Isn't tat already an irony in itself ?
I am discussing with u isn't it ? I have listed my argument, logic and show the things u have quoted and used it for argument. I have shown website, sources and information. On the other hand u try to be stupid and argue over established definition tat resuted in making u a stupid monkey being played around here and there.
Nah, I have already clearly explained to you. Your selective reading and comprehension continues to miss everything and tell me I have not answered. Just continue in your delusion ok? =D
You are the one who has been played around. Don't you realised I have just made you find quotations (although inaccurate descriptions)? Maybe you could tell us how long you took to get everything out :D
Nothing in tat report says about examworld as a website u had formed. Nothing. So something wrong with your composition skill and comprehension skill ?
That's why I said you have selective reading.
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/327598?page=8
The examiners are well trained to do so, and for Singaporeans like us, our education system make it all the harder for us to properly prepare for oral exams. We are so used to having 'TYS' questions ready for us to do. For Germans, it might be easier though, since they will most likely be used to their own system.
Then again, because of 10-year series, for Singaporeans, there are many ways to score. Once you know a system, it's always easy to score. :D Just keep doing and doing and doing questions, of course, in the right way. I have a method which I'm teaching all my tuition students right now. It's effective till the point where even if you are slightly clueless about the question, you could still answer well.
Anyway, this is where I try to help students by providing questions and solutions for them. Do help spread to those who need the help :D
http://examworld.blogspot.com => Sort of like building an online ten years series. As long as exams here are written based, it will stay useful :DU tell me u cannot trust website, and u r forming a website on your own. Isn't tat already an irony in itself ?
I told you that I don't expect people to trust my website too. Still being blur?
How many times must I repeat to you the same info so that you can understand?
U keep silent after I show the evidence. Wat else can be concluded ?
Your logic is already wrong. How to believe in your analysis of your evidences?
-
Nah, I have already clearly explained to you. Your selective reading and comprehension continues to miss everything and tell me I have not answered. Just continue in your delusion ok? =D
Ya right... u r the one with the logic problem and dare to say it out. I have already shown why it is u who have the logic error, in fact in many places, and u simply ignore it. U say it is delusion, ok lor.... a dog tat loses a fight will bark while running away.
That's why I said you have selective reading.
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/327598?page=8
Arr... tat is not addressed to me isn't it ? U do not expect me to read ALL the replies from ALL people isn't it ? Is tat considered selective reading ? If tat is the case the whole world is doing selective reading. Even the moderator do selective reading
How many times must I repeat to you the same info so that you can understand?
U do not need people to trust and so ? I cannot talk about it ya ? U do not need people to trust and I say it cannot be trusted r really 2 different things. U do not need other people comment on u doesn't mean people cannot comment
Your logic is already wrong. How to believe in your evidences?
Logic is wrong ? Where is your evidence ? U think your claim is big f&ck ya ? U claim then it must be true is it ? Wat a bigot
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Ya right... u r the one with the logic problem and dare to say it out. I have already shown why it is u who have the logic error, in fact in many places, and u simply ignore it. U say it is delusion, ok lor.... a dog tat loses a fight will bark while running away.
Arr... tat is not addressed to me isn't it ? U do not expect me to read ALL the replies from ALL people isn't it ? Is tat considered selective reading ? If tat is the case the whole world is doing selective reading. Even the moderator do selective reading
U do not need people to trust and so ? I cannot talk about it ya ? U do not need people to trust and I say it cannot be trusted r really 2 different things.
Logic is wrong ? Where is your evidence ? U think your claim is big f&ck ya ? U claim then it must be true is it ? Wat a bigot
Ya right... u r the one with the logic problem and dare to say it out. I have already shown why it is u who have the logic error, in fact in many places, and u simply ignore it. U say it is delusion, ok lor.... a dog tat loses a fight will bark while running away.
You say what you want lor. The more you say, the more childish it shows you to be.
Arr... tat is not addressed to me isn't it ? U do not expect me to read ALL the replies from ALL people isn't it ? Is tat considered selective reading ? If tat is the case the whole world is doing selective reading. Even the moderator do selective reading
Can't you see that I have already told you and given you the hint?
You mean you don't know how to search for the word ExamWorld?????
Maybe you want to tell me you come into this thread to read only my posts to you, but not my posts to anyone else? Wow...
If you do not read all the replies from pple from this thread, then what are you doing in this thread? Merely playing a game of patience and tolerance just because of me??? I feel so honoured.
Maybe you didn't realise that the moderators in SC don't really participate in heated discussions here.
U do not need people to trust and so ? I cannot talk about it ya ? U do not need people to trust and I say it cannot be trusted r really 2 different things.
Somehow, you still cannot understand.
I don't want pple to trust the answers. You don't want to trust is your problem. It seems very clear that you were never interested in helping others further knowledge; you prefer to be selfish.
Logic is wrong ? Where is your evidence ? U think your claim is big f&ck ya ? U claim then it must be true is it ? Wat a bigot
Oh, starting to use 'f' words because you are getting embarassed eh?
Childish. Immature. -
You say what you want lor. The more you say, the more childish it shows you to be.
Ya lor. It shows how childish u r yourself
Can't you see that I have already told you and given you the hint?
You mean you don't know how to search for the word ExamWorld?????
I told u before, how do I know it is not some virus or anything. U told me to search then I go and search ya ? I have already told u everybody practise selective reading. If u quote to show properly, u cannot blame others
If you do not read all the replies from pple from this thread, then what are you doing in this thread? Merely playing a game of patience and tolerance just because of me??? I feel so honoured.
I can read or choose not to read, I can glance through some replies only, in some thread there r a lot of pages before i go in and I did not read through all the things as well. So ? Your point is ? U failed in your composition isn't it ?
I don't want pple to trust the answers. You don't want to trust is your problem. It seems very clear that you were never interested in helping others further knowledge; you prefer to be selfish.
Now did I ever say I am not interested in helping others further knowledge ? Quote out specifically when have I ever said tat. Otherwise u r putting words into my mouth
Oh, starting to use 'f' words because you are getting embarassed eh?
Childish. Immature.Getting embarrassed ? Instead of dwelling on the main point of the statement u choose to dwel on one word. Shows how wrong u have been proven once again
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Ya lor. It shows how childish u r yourself
I told u before, how do I know it is not some virus or anything. U told me to search then I go and search ya ? I have already told u everybody practise selective reading. If u quote to show properly, u cannot blame others
I can read or choose not to read, I can glance through some replies only, in some thread there r a lot of pages before i go in and I did not read through all the things as well. So ? Your point is ? U failed in your composition isn't it ?
Now did I ever say I am not interested in helping others further knowledge ? Quote out specifically when have I ever said tat. Otherwise u r putting words into my mouth
Getting embarrassed ? Instead of dwelling on the main point of the statement u choose to dwel on one word. Shows how wrong u have been proven once again
I told u before, how do I know it is not some virus or anything. U told me to search then I go and search ya ? I have already told u everybody practise selective reading. If u quote to show properly, u cannot blame others
Yawns. Self-denial after being caught square again
I can read or choose not to read, I can glance through some replies only, in some thread there r a lot of pages before i go in and I did not read through all the things as well. So ? Your point is ? U failed in your composition isn't it ?
Never read through then tell me I never say. How would I know that you really read through everything before posting things?
Obviously another excuse from you.
Now did I ever say I am not interested in helping others further knowledge ? Quote out specifically when have I ever said tat. Otherwise u r putting words into my mouth
Now did I ever say you said it?
You quote me first that I have said that you say you are not interested in helping others further knowledge. "Otherwise u r putting words into my mouth" or you failed in comprehension yet again.
Getting embarrassed ? Instead of dwelling on the main point of the statement u choose to dwel on one word. Shows how wrong u have been proven once again
Say what you want bah. You have been guilty of using the "f" word. And that's because you are fed up of getting embarassed. Simple as that.
-
Yawns. Self-denial after being caught square again
Animalistic one liner grunt again *yawns*
Never read through then tell me I never say. How would I know that you really read through everything before posting things?
U write to someone else and u expect me to read it. U think I am your lover and read everything u write for others ya. Lame
Now did I ever say you said it?
You quote me first that I have said that you say you are not interested in helping others further knowledge. "Otherwise u r putting words into my mouth" or you failed in comprehension yet again.
It seems very clear that you were never interested in helping others further knowledge; you prefer to be selfish.
Wat gives u the right to say the above then ?
Say what you want bah. You have been guilty of using the "f" word. And that's because you are fed up of getting embarassed. Simple as that.
Well tat is wat an ultra sensitive guy now do to deviate attention from his flaws. I use the F word and so ? u can make groundless conclusion again ? Why don't u answer the original point on
Logic is wrong ? Where is your evidence ? U think your claim is big f&ck ya ? U claim then it must be true is it ? Wat a bigot
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Animalistic one liner grunt again *yawns*
U write to someone else and u expect me to read it. U think I am your lover and read everything u write for others ya. Lame
It seems very clear that you were never interested in helping others further knowledge; you prefer to be selfish.
Wat gives u the right to say the above then ?
Well tat is wat an ultra sensitive guy now do to deviate attention from his flaws. I use the F word and so ? u can make groundless conclusion again ? Why don't u answer the original point on
Logic is wrong ? Where is your evidence ? U think your claim is big f&ck ya ? U claim then it must be true is it ? Wat a bigot
Animalistic one liner grunt again *yawns*
Talking about your own one line?
All you can do to explain away the fact of being caught is to push it aside like this?
That's what you should have done long ago when I put opinions on you. Glad that you have learned a little. Keep it up!
U write to someone else and u expect me to read it. U think I am your lover and read everything u write for others ya. Lame
You are still telling me you don't read everything in this thread, yet you still want to discuss based on things that have already been posted. Wtf?
This is a public forum, there's nothing stopping you from reading it. But see how stupid you are with your challenge
Why don't u put your website here and let people take a look at your so called beneficial to society webpage ?
Duh
It seems very clear that you were never interested in helping others further knowledge; you prefer to be selfish.
Wat gives u the right to say the above then ?
What gives you the right to tell me I cannot state my opinions?
Now, where did I say that you said it?
Silent yet again?
Well tat is wat an ultra sensitive guy now do to deviate attention from his flaws. I use the F word and so ? u can make groundless conclusion again ? Why don't u answer the original point on
Logic is wrong ? Where is your evidence ? U think your claim is big f&ck ya ? U claim then it must be true is it ? Wat a bigot
Wow. Now you telling me you have the right to continuing asking questions when you had been rude and used a vulgarity?
Now, maybe if you apologize for being a rude person, then perhaps I will tell you why you are wrong.
-
stupid, any reason why you are so silent?
Anyway, just feel like poking at your logic again, bit by bit, since you have admitted not reading everything => the reason why you can misinterpret statements and logics and put words into my mouth so many times.
Going by your logic, then we have to write "professor is a man, occupation, job, career, human, homo sapiens, wears clothes, wear shoes, can grow moustache" etc etc.
Does a professor have to be a man, or have the ability to grow moustache?
=> limited views of you again.And as wiki has stated that a professor is a qualified expert, are you to tell me that a qualified expert is not a homo sapiens, wears clothes, wear shoes, etc? If A is a subset of B, and B is a subset of C, A is definitely a subset of C. In other words, your points doesn't hold now.
Finally, regarding occupation, job, career, that's what our discussion was about.
-
Tat is a very funny thing u do. U r incapable to responding to the many points in the earlier discussion and u dare to even ask me to respond here ? Why don't u go and answer all the points which u have no answeres to first then come here and seek a challenge ? Otherwise wat gives u the right to ask people back for a discussion when u simply refuse to answer the opponent's point. U r just simply insincere here
Talking about your own one line?
All you can do to explain away the fact of being caught is to push it aside like this?
That's what you should have done long ago when I put opinions on you. Glad that you have learned a little. Keep it up!
Sorry man, I am not cruel to animals and will not respond to a loser's bark as a vain attempt to gather back some honor. U have run dry of any points and just hurl personal insults out
You are still telling me you don't read everything in this thread, yet you still want to discuss based on things that have already been posted. Wtf?
This is a public forum, there's nothing stopping you from reading it. But see how stupid you are with your challenge
Tat is funny. U write to someone else and u expect me to read all the rubbish u have written. Why should I go and read your posts to other people ? If u wanna direct to me direct to me. U address it to the wrong people and blame it on me ? Wat an idiot.
What gives you the right to tell me I cannot state my opinions?
Now, where did I say that you said it?
Silent yet again?
If u cannot substantiate your points, then u r committing libel and u have no right to commit libel.
Now clearly u want to resort to twisted logic again. U show the reply I given, answered to it and then accuse tat I am selfish and then now u do not dare to stand by your words and wanna retract them back ? So if it is not to me, who r u addressing to ? Do u think absence of certain words can make the statement deviate from the intended meaning ?
Wow. Now you telling me you have the right to continuing asking questions when you had been rude and used a vulgarity?
Now, maybe if you apologize for being a rude person, then perhaps I will tell you why you are wrong.
In singlish, "big f*ck" really means "big shot". Certainly it makes no sense literally. Again it is clear tat u r not here for discussion and just wanna be an idiot and refuse to back up challenge repeatedly. I have backed up your challenge to me and make u stuff multiple feet into your mouth
Anyway, just feel like poking at your logic again, bit by bit, since you have admitted not reading everything => the reason why you can misinterpret statements and logics and put words into my mouth so many times
Correction. I do not read all your post tat is not addressed to me. I am not your fan, why should I read your stupid post to other people ? Again another twisting of words to mislead people
Does a professor have to be a man, or have the ability to grow moustache?
=> limited views of you againAhhh... so u r talking about another part again. So wat is your answer to the previous "logic" error ? Gone with the wind again ? If u wanna talk about another part I can entertain u
If u talk about the statement
Going by your logic, then we have to write "professor is a man, occupation, job, career, human, homo sapiens, wears clothes, wear shoes, can grow moustache" etc etc.
Why don't u read the first 4 words first. And if u read carefully, man represent human. Can grow moustache doesn't mean must grow moustache.
And as wiki has stated that a professor is a qualified expert, are you to tell me that a qualified expert is not a homo sapiens, wears clothes, wear shoes, etc? If A is a subset of B, and B is a subset of C, A is definitely a subset of C. In other words, your points doesn't hold now
U forgot wat is your previous stupid conclusion
u claim professor is a qualified expert, then u conclude professor is not an occupation because a qualified expert is not a occupation. Only stupid people can come out with such flawed logic. Wat is your defend to your stupidity ? NONE. Instead u talk about other people logic which u fail to prove to be wrong.
Now u come around and talk about the characteristic of "qualified expert", u r mixing up points because u r stupid again. I talk about the absurdity of requesting all the keywords to be written in describing an object. Such as telling people professor "homo sapien", "wear shoes" etc. Otherwise u can conclude professor is not homo sapien because it is not included in the definition. Tat is why u r stupid.
Then wat do u do ? U twist tis example to talk about your faulty logic of saying rubbish like
u claim professor is a qualified expert, then u conclude professor is not an occupation because a qualified expert is not a occupation.
Now r u confused or r u trying to confuse other people ? U r using an example tat talk about another point to talk about tis. Go back and read again
-
This is where I want to show you your discrepancy
u claim professor is a qualified expert, then u conclude professor is not an occupation because a qualified expert is not a occupation. Only stupid people can come out with such flawed logic. Wat is your defend to your stupidity ? NONE. Instead u talk about other people logic which u fail to prove to be wrong.
1) I asked you a question on whether a qualified expert is an occupation, and instead of answering me, you tell me I concluded? Try again.
2) Let's see how stupid you are again
I already ask u to state out LOUD and CLEAR. "Professor is not an occupation". State it out.
Obviously you cannot find a single statement which I have stated that a professor is not an occupation. After you have failed in coercing me to say something I have not said, now you are telling me that I made such a conclusion?
How much more stupid can you get in shooting your ownself again and again?
Ahhh... so u r talking about another part again. So wat is your answer to the previous "logic" error ? Gone with the wind again ? If u wanna talk about another part I can entertain u
If u talk about the statement
Going by your logic, then we have to write "professor is a man, occupation, job, career, human, homo sapiens, wears clothes, wear shoes, can grow moustache" etc etc.
Why don't u read the first 4 words first. And if u read carefully, man represent human. Can grow moustache doesn't mean must grow moustache.
Logic ah?
You still failed in explaining how
A is B doesn't mean B is A
is linked to your example of
teacher is man, man is not an occupation, and hence teacher is not an occupation
I have already told you that logic means "teacher is a man doesn't mean man is a teacher". Yet you keep pushing your stupid logic into my mouth and said I meant it. Wow.
Pls la, you really fail in logic.
If u cannot substantiate your points, then u r committing libel and u have no right to commit libel.
Now clearly u want to resort to twisted logic again. U show the reply I given, answered to it and then accuse tat I am selfish and then now u do not dare to stand by your words and wanna retract them back ? So if it is not to me, who r u addressing to ? Do u think absence of certain words can make the statement deviate from the intended meaning ?
There's a difference between saying
"It seems that"
and
"you are ..."
Try again. Do show me anyone who has committed libel by saying "it seems that"
And no, don't escape again:
Now, where did I say that you said it?
Silent yet again?
Sorry man, I am not cruel to animals and will not respond to a loser's bark as a vain attempt to gather back some honor. U have run dry of any points and just hurl personal insults out
Anything lor
You are the one who is telling me you are making animalistic one-line grunts in replying my statements when you merely stated
Animalistic one-line grunt
If opinions on you can be treated as insults, you are truly arrogant.
Correction. I do not read all your post tat is not addressed to me. I am not your fan, why should I read your stupid post to other people ? Again another twisting of words to mislead people
I see. When you are caught for having seen a piece of information (just before your post somemore), or caught for not reading properly everything, you are brushing it off that it is not addressed to you.
Wow.
Do continue to give excuses :D
-
Wow seems like your points get lesser and lesser as time progresses. Don't forget the other replies which u left unanswered
1) I asked you a question on whether a qualified expert is an occupation, and instead of answering me, you tell me I concluded? Try again.
Are qualified experts considered occupations? The next things just list what they may do. It does not state that a professor is an occupation. The list tells us that because someone is a professor, is an qualified expert, he has the ability to do the following with credibility.
It describes what a professor may do. It can also be said that they had described what a qualified expert can do. In no way does it say that it is an occupation.
It is already stated clearly in black and white that a professor is a qualified expert.
So, is a qualified expert an occupation?
However, you still failed to explain how when wiki says a professor is a qualified expert, how can a professor thus be an occupation?
Again I have to show repeatedly tat u have said professor is a qualified expert and tat makes it not an occupation. Did u conclude ? Yes u do because u use your question as a point and derived other statements from it.
Obviously you cannot find a single statement which I have stated that a professor is an occupation. After you have failed in coercing me to say something I have not said, now you are telling me that I made such a conclusion?
Professors are merely legal titles and a form of address. An engineer with the title of "Professor" coaches new engineering students; his main job is education. He is still an engineer.
Now u have stated professors r merely title and a form of address, and merely meant merely: And nothing else or more; only:
So u had said professor is merely a lefal title and a form of address, and not an occupation.
How does your feet taste ? U really like to suck them dry isn't it ?
-
Logic ah?
You still failed in explaining how
A is B doesn't mean B is A
is linked to your example of
teacher is man, man is not an occupation, and hence teacher is not an occupation
Did u read other people's post before ?
think u r the one with the failing logic. A is B doesn't mean B is A. Tis is because B can be a big group where A is just a subset to it. Some characteristics of A doesn't necessary be reflected in B.
Wat u had said
A= professor, B=expert
Professor is a qualified expert, qualified expert do not have the chracteristic of occupation and therefore professor do not have such characteristic
A = teacher, B = Man. A teacher is a man but a man does not have the characteristic of occupation and therefore a teacher do not have such characteristic
There's a difference between saying
"It seems that"
and
"you are ..."
Try again. Do show me anyone who has committed libel by saying "it seems that"
U mean writing "It seems very clear " is not sufficient for libel ? Since u claim it then u have to prove it. Otherwise the implication is already there.
Anything lor
You are the one who is telling me you made animalistic one-line grunts in replying my statements.
If opinions on you can be treated as insults, you are truly arrogant.
When i ask u to justify, u cannot. And u r using demeaning words on me. So if tat is not an insult, then wat is ?
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Wow seems like your points get lesser and lesser as time progresses. Don't forget the other replies which u left unanswered
Are qualified experts considered occupations? The next things just list what they may do. It does not state that a professor is an occupation. The list tells us that because someone is a professor, is an qualified expert, he has the ability to do the following with credibility.
It describes what a professor may do. It can also be said that they had described what a qualified expert can do. In no way does it say that it is an occupation.
It is already stated clearly in black and white that a professor is a qualified expert.
So, is a qualified expert an occupation?
However, you still failed to explain how when wiki says a professor is a qualified expert, how can a professor thus be an occupation?
Again I have to show repeatedly tat u have said professor is a qualified expert and tat makes it not an occupation. Did u conclude ? Yes u do because u use your question as a point and derived other statements from it.
Professors are merely legal titles and a form of address. An engineer with the title of "Professor" coaches new engineering students; his main job is education. He is still an engineer.
Now u have stated professors r merely title and a form of address, and merely meant merely: And nothing else or more; only:
So u had said professor is merely a lefal title and a form of address, and not an occupation.
How does your feet taste ? U really like to suck them dry isn't it ?
Are qualified experts considered occupations? The next things just list what they may do. It does not state that a professor is an occupation. The list tells us that because someone is a professor, is an qualified expert, he has the ability to do the following with credibility.
Again I have to show repeatedly tat u have said professor is a qualified expert and tat makes it not an occupation. Did u conclude ? Yes u do because u use your question as a point and derived other statements from it.
Pls la. Don't be so stupid can a not.
We are discussing if wiki has stated a professor is an occupation.
Don't divert and twist words that I have said that professor is not an occupation (yet again)
And you are extremely stupid (again) to think I will conclude from asking a question in which you failed to answer (too many times). If you do not answer, how do you know how I will continue? Putting words in my mouth (again)?
Professors are merely legal titles and a form of address. An engineer with the title of "Professor" coaches new engineering students; his main job is education. He is still an engineer.
Now u have stated professors r merely title and a form of address, and merely meant merely: And nothing else or more; only:
Stupid aren't you?
You are the one who explained that A is B means A contains characteristics that B do not have.
So if I say professors are merely legal title and a form of address, it doesn't mean professors cannot be an occupation.
Did I specifically say professors cannot be an occupation?
You are still the one who told me to state it out, when clearly, I didn't. Blatant denial of your guilt?
Did u read other people's post before ?
yes, I read all your posts to everyone else in this thread
otherwise, how would I know if you have stated any extra points which I will find valid?
think u r the one with the failing logic. A is B doesn't mean B is A. Tis is because B can be a big group where A is just a subset to it. Some characteristics of A doesn't necessary be reflected in B.
Wat u had said
A= professor, B=expert
Professor is a qualified expert, qualified expert do not have the chracteristic of occupation and therefore professor do not have such characteristic
A = teacher, B = Man. A teacher is a man but a man does not have the characteristic of occupation and therefore a teacher do not have such characteristic
Hahaha
Your logic really fails.
Again, you put words in my mouth when I asked you a question in which you do not answer, and hence I cannot continue my points.
Pls la, where exactly did I say
Professor is a qualified expert, qualified expert do not have the chracteristic of occupation and therefore professor do not have such characteristic
Not everyone is as stupid as you to come up with stupid logics to explain perfectly logical statements.
U mean writing "It seems very clear " is not sufficient for libel ? Since u claim it then u have to prove it. Otherwise the implication is already there.
Only you view it as an implication.
How? Escaped yet again in finding a case of libel when someone says "it seems very clear" ?
Just like how you escaped in contacting MOM if it's illegal to employ someone to do nothing?
And don't escape again:
Now, where did I say that you said it?
Silent yet again?
When i ask u to justify, u cannot. And u r using demeaning words on me. So if tat is not an insult, then wat is ?
Demeaning?
How is saying that you are limited in view demeaning?
Do you have to accept it?
Btw, have you viewed ExamWorld? Going to eat back your words that in comparing the verification?
-
Pls la. Don't be so stupid can a not.
We are discussing if wiki has stated a professor is an occupation.
Don't divert and twist words that I have said that professor is not an occupation (yet again)
And you are extremely stupid (again) to think I will conclude from asking a question in which you failed to answer (too many times). If you do not answer, how do you know how I will continue? Putting words in my mouth (again)?
U r talking rubbish la ! First u challenge me to show u tat u stated qualified is not an occupation is your conclusiona nd I proved it to u. Did u read the things i have listed out ? It is not not a question but instead a statement. Of course a person who do not understand statement cannot comprehend tat he had said something.
Then u ask me to show u tat u have stated professor is not an occupation. I have shown u again and tat statement u made is very long ago and it has nothing to do with the wiki definition. It is u trying to lie through your teeth and end up as a moron.
So if I say professors are merely legal title and a form of address, it doesn't mean professors cannot be an occupation.
U use the word merely and it already meant solely, only etc. It already mean it cannot be other things such as occupation. Do u understand english ? I already given u the definition of the word "merely". U still do not understand ?
Again, you put words in my mouth when I asked you a question in which you do not answer, and hence I cannot continue my points.
Pls la, where exactly did I say
It is linked to the first point of tis reply and clearly u have stated such an absurb conclusion. If u do not implied tat, then u r clearly having delusions. I wonder how can your students stand such a lousy tuition teacher like u. U said something wrong and when the student point it out, u can ask him to quote it out. When they quote it out u can twist and turn and interprete the statement totally different from how people understand it.
Only you view it as an implication.
How? Escaped yet again in finding a case of libel when someone says "it seems very clear" ?
Just like how you escaped in contacting MOM if it's illegal to employ someone to do nothing?
U think I am very free to search through libel files ya ? Lets see wat such cases r defined as
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.
Look at the word "implied". Your statement had already implied tat I am selfish without giving any justification. So u have committed libel. If u claim tat "it seems very clear" is not implying anything, than u have to prove to me
Demeaning?
How is saying that you are limited in view demeaning?
Do you have to accept it?
Obviously it is demeaning because it implied I am intellectually challenged. Of course I cannot accept it and have to defend my honor.
-
U r talking rubbish la ! First u challenge me to show u tat u stated qualified is not an occupation is your conclusiona nd I proved it to u. Did u read the things i have listed out ? It is not not a question but instead a statement. Of course a person who do not understand statement cannot comprehend tat he had said something.
It's a question. It ends with a question mark. Period.
Who knows? With your logic, you might be thinking that a qualified expert is an occupation.
Then u ask me to show u tat u have stated professor is not an occupation. I have shown u again and tat statement u made is very long ago and it has nothing to do with the wiki definition. It is u trying to lie through your teeth and end up as a moron.
Don't be a moron.
You are unable to show that I stated that a professor is not an occupation.
And hence you have to resort to coercing me to state it.
The evidence is there that you asked me to state it because you cannot find the sentence which I said it, not just once.
U use the word merely and it already meant solely, only etc. It already mean it cannot be other things such as occupation. Do u understand english ? I already given u the definition of the word "merely". U still do not understand ?
So you want to play with words?
Fine. Let me ask you.
Are professors occupational titles?
If it can be an occupational title, then what is wrong in saying they are legal titles? Or you want to tell me a legal title cannot be an occupational title?
It is linked to the first point of tis reply and clearly u have stated such an absurb conclusion. If u do not implied tat, then u r clearly having delusions. I wonder how can your students stand such a lousy tuition teacher like u. U said something wrong and when the student point it out, u can ask him to quote it out. When they quote it out u can twist and turn and interprete the statement totally different from how people understand it.
Yawns... You are still telling me I made a conclusion when I asked you a question in which you have made use of long paragraphs and still cannot give an answer to???
U think I am very free to search through libel files ya ? Lets see wat such cases r defined as
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.
Look at the word "implied". Your statement had already implied tat I am selfish without giving any justification. So u have committed libel. If u claim tat "it seems very clear" is not implying anything, than u have to prove to me
Ya what, you are definitely very free. What other reasons can it be given that you have to state you are playing games of patience and tolerance?
You are still escaping:
How? Escaped yet again in finding a case of libel when someone says "it seems very clear" ?
Just like how you escaped in contacting MOM if it's illegal to employ someone to do nothing?
Obviously it is demeaning because it implied I am intellectually challenged. Of course I cannot accept it and have to defend my honor.
Wow! What a statement from an immature mind.
How is saying that you have limited views from this thread mean that you are intellectually challenged?
Maybe extra derivations from you (again)?