Does this post offend you?
-
wah lau! take pandol liao
-
dun follow and save on the panadol lah....
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Well since u say it, then u have to prove it. And wat is your opinion of
If u ask me, the university website is definitely more accurate compared with your claims. Tis is already their official stand. They r a university which u have listed yourself. Why should we doubt the official statement of academics which system u r under ? U r obviously less qualify than the university to state whether is oral examination more easy or not. It is like u telling me doing A is more difficult then B when the school tat teaches u and all the people in it already stated it is easier. Should I believe the master and the whole school or an individual who have poor memory and stated false data such as u ?
IS your opinion "Oh Yeah" and agree with me ?
Now tat is my take home pay. If u add in CPF contribution it is 3600 a month
If u look at tat, which is from the first time I said on my salary, I am saying >3000. U cut it short to form 3000 but the meaning is 2880. Now wat error have I committed ?
So u r saying the professor goes like tis
pro: "Can u tell me wat is the theory A"
Student: "sorry sir, I am not very clear on tat issue."
pro: "can u tell me wat is the theory A"
student: " Ehh... I don't know.. really"
pro: "can u tell me wat is theory A"
student: " ?????"
Is tat wat u r saying the professor is doing ? If tat is the case your story is too ridiculous to be believable. If he ask another different question, then the student had effectively skipped tis question which is similar to the written exam.
Does he need to use scientific knowledge and maths and developing solutions ?
And so ? The occupation is still a professor and not an engineer. Do u know engineer is an occupation ?
Well since u say it, then u have to prove it. And wat is your opinion of
If u ask me, the university website is definitely more accurate compared with your claims. Tis is already their official stand. They r a university which u have listed yourself. Why should we doubt the official statement of academics which system u r under ? U r obviously less qualify than the university to state whether is oral examination more easy or not. It is like u telling me doing A is more difficult then B when the school tat teaches u and all the people in it already stated it is easier. Should I believe the master and the whole school or an individual who have poor memory and stated false data such as u ?
IS your opinion "Oh Yeah" and agree with me ?
Oh yeah obviously means that are you sure it is true when my observation is such as I have told you?
Why? Cannot explain the observation?
Now tat is my take home pay. If u add in CPF contribution it is 3600 a month
If u look at tat, which is from the first time I said on my salary, I am saying >3000. U cut it short to form 3000 but the meaning is 2880. Now wat error have I committed ?
Still trying to deny. Either way I see it, by replying to "Tat is my takehome pay" to "3000 a month is still on the lower end. ", you are still saying that 3000 is your takehome pay.
It's either your error in calculations, or your error in quotation.
So u r saying the professor goes like tis
pro: "Can u tell me wat is the theory A"
Student: "sorry sir, I am not very clear on tat issue."
pro: "can u tell me wat is the theory A"
student: " Ehh... I don't know.. really"
pro: "can u tell me wat is theory A"
student: " ?????"
Is tat wat u r saying the professor is doing ? If tat is the case your story is too ridiculous to be believable. If he ask another different question, then the student had effectively skipped tis question which is similar to the written exam.
Are you very very sure that is what I have described? I've already told you that the professor will provide certain hints if the student really do not know, and attempt to ask again, on the expense of the student's oral exam time. The reason for it? You are supposed to have been attending all lectures throughout the semester, and you should definitely remember something about it. If the exams were as simple as you have made it, the professors wouldn't even have bothered attempting to give some hints at times.
I have not even gone into the format of testing yet, and you are already telling me so many things as if you know everything. Wow.
Does he need to use scientific knowledge and maths and developing solutions ?
1) So finding out the defect on a semi-conductor die requires maths? An engineer coming out with a software code requires science and maths?
2) Why not? The road sweeper needs to use his scientific knowledge (physics) to come out with more efficient ways to clean up the streets so as to do his job faster. You don't flip the broom hard such that it breaks, you don't exert excessive strength to sweep leaves, etc.
And so ? The occupation is still a professor and not an engineer. Do u know engineer is an occupation ?
See? I'm talking about an engineer, not a full-time occupation as an engineer. Is the professor I mentioned not an engineer?
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
dun follow and save on the panadol lah....
but i want to learn mah, to see how our talents/intellect compete with each other..good for my GP paper. -
Originally posted by angel7030:
but i want to learn mah, to see how our talents/intellect compete with each other..good for my GP paper.GP paper ? ....
panadol doesn't cure schizophrenia you know ....
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
GP paper ? ....
panadol doesn't cure schizophrenia you know ....
aiya, ah pui...damn, take panadol stronger type. -
Originally posted by angel7030:
but i want to learn mah, to see how our talents/intellect compete with each other..good for my GP paper.slinging match also intellect meh? (with due respects to the two)
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
slinging match also intellect meh? (with due respects to the two)
at least better than foreign talents -
Originally posted by angel7030:
aiya, ah pui...damn, take panadol stronger type.last time, you say you poly one, then you said you studied psychology ....
wah ! ... now become JC student take GP ? ...
I guess you're not just schizo about your citizenship ? ...
-
Then maybe you should explain the reason why most Singaporeans fare better in written examinations than oral examinations in a German uni. That is what have been observed
U need to prove out tis observation then I can start my explanation. If it is rubbish, how do I explain rubbish out ? U claim it u prove it. Tat is the norms isn't it ?
Otherwise I might as well claim in the planet Xexas there live the wise being called voodooroo . Tis being says oral examination is more easy. Explain tis phenomenon.
And wat is your explanation for the below paragraph ? tongue tied ?
If u ask me, the university website is definitely more accurate compared with your claims. Tis is already their official stand. They r a university which u have listed yourself. Why should we doubt the official statement of academics which system u r under ? U r obviously less qualify than the university to state whether is oral examination more easy or not. It is like u telling me doing A is more difficult then B when the school tat teaches u and all the people in it already stated it is easier. Should I believe the master and the whole school or an individual who have poor memory and stated false data such as u ?
Still trying to deny. Either way I see it, by replying to "Tat is my takehome pay" to "3000 a month is still on the lower end. ", you are still saying that 3000 is your takehome pay.
I am saying >3000 which is the original statement I had quoted. Did I ever say I get 3000 in the previous thread ? If u think I claim I said exactly 3000 and not >3000 in jul, then u have to prove it.
Are you very very sure that is what I have described? I've already told you that the professor will provide certain hints if the student really do not know, and attempt to ask again, on the expense of the student's oral exam time. The reason for it? You are supposed to have been attending all lectures throughout the semester, and you should definitely remember something about it. If the exams were as simple as you have made it, the professors wouldn't even have bothered attempting to give some hints at times.
Then I have already told u the professor is helping the student by giving hints to him. He gets SOME here rather than ZERO if he skip and leave a question blank in the written exam. If u say the professor really ask the same question again over and over to waste his time, then I can conclude the professor has his brain dropped off and it is a valid conclusion.
1) So finding out the defect on a semi-conductor die requires maths?
Scientific knowledge and in tis case, sometimes maths had to be used
2) Why not? The road sweeper needs to use his scientific knowledge (physics) to come out with more efficient ways to clean up the streets so as to do his job faster. You don't flip the broom hard such that it breaks, you don't exert excessive strength to sweep leaves, etc.
Develop is the key word. If he develop a new method to sweep floors, then congratulation, he is indeed an inventor and depending on the method, an engineer
It is fun to see u trying to redefine the word engineer from wikipedia. Maybe u think u r better than the whole world in defining wat is an engineer or not
See? I'm talking about an engineer, not a full-time occupation as an engineer. Is the professor I mentioned not an engineer?
U see the flaw in your argument
U claim the professor is an engineer. And his job deals with lecturing. Then u link his professor job and his profession together by claiming engineer lectures. Take note lecturing is due to him being a professor, not because he is an engineer.
1) He is a professor whose trained in engineering
2) he is considered as an engineer
3) he lecture because he is a professor
4) u conclude engineer lectures
If u use tis twisted example of linking a profession to the occupation, then i can say Hu Jintao is trained as an engineer. He is now a politician and manage a country. Using your twisted thinking, then i can say engineer manage the country.
1) he is a politican trained in engineering
2) he is considered as an engineer
3) he manage the country because he is a politician
4) u can conclude engineer runs the country
I can also say an engineer do part time policing. He is an engineer by occupation and he really do catch bandits and criminals. By your twisted thinking u say engineer do policing.
1) he is an engineer
2) he do part time policing
3) u conclude engineer do policing
See how absurb your argument is about
U know wat is your problem. NOT all engineer r professors. U do not use professor's job scope and and rope into engineer
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
at least better than foreign talentsfor GP, markers are looking for simplicity and clarity of ideas.
if you are taking panadols trying to follow them, for sure the marker will take panadol trying to understand what you wrote....
in other words, no good.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
last time, you say you poly one, then you said you studied psychology ....
wah ! ... now become JC student take GP ? ...
I guess you're not just schizo about your citizenship ? ...
General Practitioner paper, not JC stuff ok. Aiyo, me just want to cheer them on, can't you see the reverse psychology here. You like to take me seriously hor,...that is where you are wrong..hehehe
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
for GP, markers are looking for simplicity and clarity of ideas.
if you are taking panadols trying to follow them, for sure the marker will take panadol trying to understand what you wrote....
in other words, no good.
Oh! thanks, me go and sleep better. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
U need to prove out tis observation then I can start my explanation. If it is rubbish, how do I explain rubbish out ? U claim it u prove it. Tat is the norms isn't it ?
Otherwise I might as well claim in the planet Xexas there live the wise being called voodooroo . Tis being says oral examination is more easy. Explain tis phenomenon.
And wat is your explanation for the below paragraph ? tongue tied ?
If u ask me, the university website is definitely more accurate compared with your claims. Tis is already their official stand. They r a university which u have listed yourself. Why should we doubt the official statement of academics which system u r under ? U r obviously less qualify than the university to state whether is oral examination more easy or not. It is like u telling me doing A is more difficult then B when the school tat teaches u and all the people in it already stated it is easier. Should I believe the master and the whole school or an individual who have poor memory and stated false data such as u ?
I am saying >3000 which is the original statement I had quoted. Did I ever say I get 3000 in the previous thread ? If u think I claim I said exactly 3000 and not >3000, then u have to prove it.
Then I have already told u the professor is helping the student by giving hints to him. He gets SOME here rather than ZERO if he skip and leave a question blank in the written exam. If u say the professor really ask the same question again over and over to waste his time, then I can conclude the professor has his brain dropped off and it is a valid conclusion.
Scientific knowledge and in tis case, sometimes maths had to be used
Develop is the key word. If he develop a new method to sweep floors, then congratulation, he is indeed an inventor and depending on the method, an engineer
It is fun to see u trying to redefine the word engineer from wikipedia. Maybe u think u r better than the whole world in defining wat is an engineer or not
U see the flaw in your argument
U claim the professor is an engineer. And his job deals with lecturing. Then u link his professor job and his profession together by claiming engineer lectures. Take note lecturing is due to him being a professor, not because he is an engineer.
1) He is a professor whose trained in engineering
2) he is considered as an engineer
3) he lecture because he is a professor
4) u conclude engineer lectures
If u use tis twisted example of linking a profession to the occupation, then i can say Hu Jintao is trained as an engineer. He is now a politician and manage a country. Using your twisted thinking, then i can say engineer manage the country.
1) he is a politican trained in engineering
2) he is considered as an engineer
3) he manage the country because he is a politician
4) u can conclude engineer runs the country
I can also say an engineer do part time policing. He is an engineer by occupation and he really do catch bandits and criminals. By your twisted thinking u say engineer do policing.
1) he is an engineer
2) he do part time policing
3) u conclude engineer do policing
See how absurb your argument is about
U know wat is your problem. NOT all engineer r professors. U do not use professor's job scope and and rope into engineer
U need to prove out tis observation then I can start my explanation. If it is rubbish, how do I explain rubbish out ? U claim it u prove it. Tat is the norms isn't it ?
Otherwise I might as well claim in the planet Xexas there live the wise being called voodooroo . Tis being says oral examination is more easy. Explain tis phenomenon.
And wat is your explanation for the below paragraph ? tongue tied ?
If u ask me, the university website is definitely more accurate compared with your claims. Tis is already their official stand. They r a university which u have listed yourself. Why should we doubt the official statement of academics which system u r under ? U r obviously less qualify than the university to state whether is oral examination more easy or not. It is like u telling me doing A is more difficult then B when the school tat teaches u and all the people in it already stated it is easier. Should I believe the master and the whole school or an individual who have poor memory and stated false data such as u ?
...
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????????
I am saying >3000 which is the original statement I had quoted. Did I ever say I get 3000 in the previous thread ? If u think I claim I said exactly 3000 and not >3000, then u have to prove it.
Have you or have you not quoted me when I mentioned 3000 (exactly) and replied to it?
You can't blame me if you want to quote me saying 3000 (no < or > sign) and then reply to it that it is your take home pay.
Scientific knowledge and in tis case, sometimes maths had to be used
Programming? Software engineer? Sometimes is not a valid enough work in your strict definition.
Develop is the key word. If he develop a new method to sweep floors, then congratulation, he is indeed an inventor and depending on the method, an engineer
It is fun to see u trying to redefine the word engineer from wikipedia. Maybe u think u r better than the whole world in defining wat is an engineer or not
I have already shown you that the definition does not encompass software engineers. You should look at where the source of wiki's definition came from before you start shooting around aimlessly again.
U see the flaw in your argument
U claim the professor is an engineer. And his job deals with lecturing. Then u link his professor job and his profession together by claiming engineer lectures. Take note lecturing is due to him being a professor, not because he is an engineer.
1) He is a professor whose trained in engineering
2) he is considered as an engineer
3) he lecture because he is a professor
4) u conclude engineer lectures
If u use tis twisted example of linking a profession to the occupation, then i can say Hu Jintao is trained as an engineer. He is now a politician and manage a country. Using your twisted thinking, then i can say engineer manage the country.
1) he is a politican trained in engineering
2) he is considered as an engineer
3) he manage the country because he is a politician
4) u can conclude engineer runs the country
I can also say an engineer do part time policing. He is an engineer by occupation and he really do catch bandits and criminals. By your twisted thinking u say engineer do policing.
1) he is an engineer
2) he do part time policing
3) u conclude engineer do policing
See how absurb your argument is about
U know wat is your problem. NOT all engineer r professors. U do not use professor's job scope and and rope into engineer
For a professor, the part time job entails the same knowledge required as the full time job. How the hell did you even come up with a comparison of a policeman, whose knowledge required is entirely different from what an engineer should know. Try harder please.
How come you still taking a politician and a policeman into the equation when the above has been presented to you?
U know wat is your problem. NOT all engineer r professors. U do not use professor's job scope and and rope into engineer
You know your problem? Your logic is missing. I mentioned earlier that part of the equation includes education. The main job for the professor is education, and he's an engineer because he does engineering too, both in research and as a professional engineer.
In your logic, a professor can only be a professor. He cannot be a researcher, and thus cannot be a engineer????
No matter how I read it, I don't see myself having said at all that "all engineer r professors". Perhaps your selective reading disorder again.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
General Practitioner paper, not JC stuff ok. Aiyo, me just want to cheer them on, can't you see the reverse psychology here. You like to take me seriously hor,...that is where you are wrong..hehehe
I don't take you seriously, i just enjoy high-lighting your schizophrenia ....
so ... what are you now ? ....
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
I don't take you seriously, i just enjoy high-lighting your schizophrenia ....
so ... what are you now ? ....
obviously, doctor-in-waiting............
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
obviously, doctor-in-waiting............
no, I want it from her mouth .... you watch ...
-
...
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????????
Come on la ! The website from a university, the expert in tis field had already stated clearly tat oral exams r more easy and for your benefit. Tis is not a 3rd party info, tis is an EVIDENCE. It is PROOF. Your account is the third party info, gather from friends etc and u cannot prove out any of your claims. Furthermore u have shown to have memory loss and produced fake figures before. Why should anyone trust your info and disregard a website from the university ? When we r asked to produce evidence,we produe statements from reputable websites. Tis is EVIDENCE
Have you or have you not quoted me when I mentioned 3000 (exactly) and replied to it?
You can't blame me if you want to quote me saying 3000 (no < or > sign) and then reply to it that it is your take home pay.
I say "tat" is my take home pay. "Tat" is in my account in the other thread and I clearly specified >3000. Now I have clarified my stand, u still wanna choose to be muddled ?
Programming? Software engineer? Sometimes is not a valid enough work in your strict definition.
Heard of computer science ? They solve practical problems following computer science. U got a problem with tat ?
You know your problem? Your logic is missing. I mentioned earlier that part of the equation includes education. The main job for the professor is education, and he's an engineer because he does engineering too, both in research and as a professional engineer.
In your logic, a professor can only be a professor. He cannot be a researcher, and thus cannot be a engineer????
No matter how I read it, I don't see myself having said at all that "all engineer r professors". Perhaps your selective reading disorder again.
An engineer can be in reseatch. And tat is why u label them as "reseacher". A professor can give lecture, tat is why he is a "professor". Your example of the professor can be considered as an engineer. But when he give lectures, he does it because he is a professor, not engineer.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Come on la ! The website from a university, the expert in tis field had already stated clearly tat oral exams r more easy and for your benefit. Tis is not a 3rd party info, tis is an EVIDENCE. It is PROOF. Your account is the third party info, gather from friends etc and u cannot prove out any of your claims. Furthermore u have shown to have memory loss and produced fake figures before. Why should anyone trust your info and disregard a website from the university ? When we r asked to produce evidence, they r from reputable websites. Tis is EVIDENCE
I say tat is my take home pay. Tat is my account in the other thread and I clearly specified >3000. Now I have clarified my stand, u still wanna choose to be muddled ?
Heard of computer science ?
Ok. Your example of a part time professor is an engineer. Then ? He lectures is because he is a professor and not because he is an engineer.
Come on la ! The website from a university, the expert in tis field had already stated clearly tat oral exams r more easy and for your benefit. Tis is not a 3rd party info, tis is an EVIDENCE. It is PROOF. Your account is the third party info, gather from friends etc and u cannot prove out any of your claims. Furthermore u have shown to have memory loss and produced fake figures before. Why should anyone trust your info and disregard a website from the university ? When we r asked to produce evidence, they r from reputable websites. Tis is EVIDENCE
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???
Me? I saw the results slips of my friends.
Why should anyone trust your info and disregard a website from the university ?
Because many suffered when we thought intially it was easier (just like you do now), and came back with the conclusion it was harder. I have told all other potential student exchange students what I have told you (and more). What have you? Take something from a website that most of us do not believe in, and tell me it is the absolute truth.
What evidence (text evidence somemore) when you have not even the opportunity for such experiences?
I say tat is my take home pay. Tat is my account in the other thread and I clearly specified >3000. Now I have clarified my stand, u still wanna choose to be muddled ?
What have you clarified? You made an error in calculations or quotation?
Heard of computer science ? They solve practical problems following computer science. U got a problem with tat ?
Are you dumb? Your definition encompasses everything. I just need to raise one single example to prove you wrong. Do all software engineers need scientific knowledge and maths to come out with solutions????
An engineer can be in reseatch. And tat is why u label them as "reseacher". A professor can give lecture, tat is why he is a "professor". Your example of the professor can be considered as an engineer. But when he give lectures, he does it because he is a professor, not engineer.
The last sentence can be changed to: when he give lectures, he does it because he is a professor (in engineering), but he's still an engineer.
-
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???
Me? I saw the results slips of my friends.
Tis is rubbish. Then all the website cannot be relies on since they r all third hand information ? U shouldn't rely on the news because they r third hand information and u shouldn't rely on your reports from your colleage becasue they r third hand information ? When we stated evidence, we stated website from reputable institute and an expert in tis field. They have no reason to lie. U doubt their professionalism ? Their stand is obviously much compared with your friends who is statistically insignificant. Furthermore your integrity is at doubt here.
Because many suffered when we thought intially it was easier (just like you do now), and came back with the conclusion it was harder. I have told all other potential student exchange students what I have told you (and more). What have you? Take something from a website that most of us do not believe in, and tell me it is the absolute truth.
What evidence (text evidence somemore) when you have not even the opportunity for such experiences?
U see, all the things u claimed r simply pesonal experiences. Who r u ? Why should your claim be taken absolute compared with real evidence ? I can also claim I went to the U and it is a piece of cake clearing the oral exams. All my friends there number to thousands confirm the oral exam is more simple. I can claim too. So whose claim is right ? I got a university website tat confirms my stand. Wat do u have other than your wild claims which u had shown to be wrong before
What have you clarified? You made an error in calculations or quotation?
I have clarified tat the word "tat" in tat statement refer to >3000 stated in the previous thread. There is no error in calculation or quotation. u r just confused
Are you dumb? Your definition encompasses everything. I just need to raise one single example to prove you wrong. Do all software engineers need scientific knowledge and maths to come out with solutions????
They ALL need scientific knowledge such as computer science to come out with solution. They probably use "If", "else" "true" "false" and "arrays" which uses maths. R u dumb ? U never program before ?
The last sentence can be changed to: when he give lectures, he does it because he is a professor (in engineering), but he's still an engineer.
As said, he lecture becasue he is a professor not becasue he is an engineer. The basic job is still on providing practical solution. If u wanna use your statement, any absurb conclusions can be gathered.
Hu manages the country, he does it because he is a politician but he is still an engineer.
The engineer police volunteer police, because he is a part time policeman but he is still an engineer.
But th important fact is professor lecture because he is a professor, politician manages country because he is a politician and police do police duties because he is a part time police and NOT because he is an engineer.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Tis is rubbish. Then all the website cannot be relies on since they r all third hand information ? U shouldn't rely on the news because they r third hand information and u shouldn't rely on your reports from your colleage becasue they r third hand information ? When we stated evidence, we stated website from reputable institute and an expert in tis field. They have no reason to lie. U doubt their professionalism ? Their stand is obviously much compared with your friends who is statistically insignificant. Furthermore your integrity is at doubt here.
U see, all the things u claimed r simply pesonal experiences. Who r u ? Why should your claim be taken absolute compared with real evidence ? I can also claim I went to the U and it is a piece of cake clearing the oral exams. All my friends there number to thousands confirm the oral exam is more simple. I can claim too. So whose claim is right ? I got a university website tat confirms my stand. Wat do u have other than your wild claims which u had shown to be wrong before
I have clarified tat the word "tat" in tat statement refer to >3000 stated in the previous thread. There is no error in calculation or quotation. u r just confused
They ALL need scientific knowledge such as computer science to come out with solution. They probably use "If", "else" "true" "false" and "arrays" which uses maths. R u dumb ? U never program before ?
As said, he lecture becasue he is a professor not becasue he is an engineer. The basic job is still on providing practical solution. If u wanna use your statement, any absurb conclusions can be gathered.
Hu manages the country, he does it because he is a politician but he is still an engineer.
The engineer police volunteer police, because he is a part time policeman but he is still an engineer.
But th important fact is professor lecture because he is a professor, politician manages country because he is a politician and police do police duties because he is a part time police and NOT because he is an engineer.
Tis is rubbish. Then all the website cannot be relies on since they r all third hand information ? U shouldn't rely on the news because they r third hand information and u shouldn't rely on your reports from your colleage becasue they r third hand information ? When we stated evidence, we stated website from reputable institute and an expert in tis field. They have no reason to lie. U doubt their professionalism ? Their stand is obviously much compared with your friends who is statistically insignificant. Furthermore your integrity is at doubt here.
U see, all the things u claimed r simply pesonal experiences. Who r u ? Why should your claim be taken absolute compared with real evidence ? I can also claim I went to the U and it is a piece of cake clearing the oral exams. All my friends there number to thousands confirm the oral exam is more simple. I can claim too. So whose claim is right ? I got a university website tat confirms my stand. Wat do u have other than your wild claims which u had shown to be wrong before
Put yourself into the shoes of a student who is going to study there.
Are you going to believe the website, or someone who has come back from there and experienced everything first hand?
And for the sentence in red, you are already starting to tell more and more lies because you are already losing your stand. Are you sure if I question you on the format of the exams, you can tell me very clearly what happened?
LIAR
I have clarified tat the word "tat" in tat statement refer to >3000 stated in the previous thread. There is no error in calculation or quotation. u r just confused
Yah la yah la, you quoted me and your "tat" refers to another thread. Great job!
Means you cannot even reference properly.
They ALL need scientific knowledge such as computer science to come out with solution. They probably use "If", "else" "true" "false" and "arrays" which uses maths. R u dumb ? U never program before ?
By using the word probably, you already cannot tell me you are definitely 100% sure that they use maths to do so.
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?
As said, he lecture becasue he is a professor not becasue he is an engineer. The basic job is still on providing practical solution. If u wanna use your statement, any absurb conclusions can be gathered.
Hu manages the country, he does it because he is a politician but he is still an engineer.
The engineer police volunteer police, because he is a part time policeman but he is still an engineer.
But th important fact is professor lecture because he is a professor, politician manages country because he is a politician and police do police duties because he is a part time police and NOT because he is an engineer.
Firstly, you are still taking policeman and politicians here even though it has been pointed out to you that the knowledge required is different. Are you dumb or autistic to repeat it again and again????
Secondly, you have to be an engineer before you are able to be a professor for engineering. How can a non-engineer be a professor for engineering? Yet a non-engineer can be a policeman, a politician, etc. See where your logic is going down the drain?
-
Put yourself into the shoes of a student who is going to study there.
Are you going to believe the website, or someone who has come back from there and experienced everything first hand?
And for the sentence in red, you are already starting to tell more and more lies because you are already losing your stand. Are you sure if I question you on the format of the exams, you can tell me very clearly what happened?
I did not any lies. I am just trying to tell u tat your claims is unfair and cannot supercede the website information. If I am someone who is gonan go to germany, I may believe the words of a senior who went there. However u r a person trying to argue tat oral exams r more difficult here and your claims can be selfish and untrue and u cannot proved it out. As said before, if u claim tat singaporean felt it is more diificult, then u have to prove it out. Otherwise it is just an empty claim tat has little weight
Yah la yah la, you quoted me and your "tat" refers to another thread. Great job!
Means you cannot even reference properly.
It means u cannot read and conclude properly. And u had failed to prove I had made any errors
By using the word probably, you already cannot tell me you are definitely 100% sure that they use maths to do so.
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?
I think u need to know wat is software engineer. They do programming, not use photoshop to beautify things here and there. Beautifying a graphic is the role of a graphic designer. Look at the job scope of a software engineer first before u make a comment
Software engineering is the application of a systematic, disciplined, quantifiable approach to the development, operation, and maintenance of software.[1] It encompasses techniques and procedures, often regulated by a software development process, with the purpose of improving the reliability and maintainability of software systems.[2] The effort is necessitated by the potential complexity of those systems, which may contain millions of lines of code.[3]
Firstly, you are still taking policeman and politicians here even though it has been pointed out to you that the knowledge required is different. Are you dumb or autistic to repeat it again and again????
I think u r the dumb ass here. The logic u derived in trying to prove an engineer lectures is the same in giving the conclusion an engineer manages the country. The logic flow is the same and it shows your logic sucks.
Secondly, you have to be an engineer before you are able to be a professor for engineering. How can a non-engineer be a professor for engineering? Yet a non-engineer can be a policeman, a politician, etc. See where your logic is going down the drain?
And so ? because he is a professor he is already different from an engineer. Your logic flow tat because he is a professor and he is an engineer at the same time, u push the professor job to be an engineer job. Tat is ridiculous isn't it ? I pointed it out to u by giving examples tat highlighted your stupidity but sad to say u persist in being one.
-
- ----
- ----
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
I don't take you seriously, i just enjoy high-lighting your schizophrenia ....
so ... what are you now ? ....
And i enjoy your ah pui style and teasing of me too..hehehe, me now an Angel ya. -
Originally posted by redDUST:
obviously, doctor-in-waiting............
You must be joking dear.