Job Discussion Forums

fluffyhamster · Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 2:43 pm Post subject:

Oh, I thought you were maybe having a go at my writing LOL. I even went back and used some of those yummy brackets (that I just can't get enough of!) rather than commas (compare your quote with my edit).

happyinshangqiu · Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 3:58 am Post subject:

Sashadroogie · Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 5:02 am Post subject:

Nobody got kicked around here. Fluffy just bores posters with his interminable posts. He can't accept that his ideas about EFL are completely off, and thinks he has the academic wherewithal to go up against Oxbridge and win. I alone continue posting because I feel sorry for him, rattling away as he does in his hamster wheel. But even so, his prose drains the will to live...

Still, at least he's fluffy, and makes the odd insightful comment. Some other posters are just crude and have nothing going for them. The only mild interest they inspire is related to when they'll be banned again, and whether or not it will be permanently...

fluffyhamster · Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 6:16 am Post subject:

Not sure what Oxbridge has got to do with this, but the people I feel really sorry for are those teachers who use supposedly communicative classes to lecture about grammar they don't have much clue or even inkling about. To say nothing of their unfortunate students!

Sashadroogie · Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 7:03 am Post subject:

The materials and lesson methodology that you are slating are all from there... Perhaps that was overlooked in the haste to attack the clip.

fluffyhamster · Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 7:58 am Post subject:

To establish and continue to run a business one obviously has to do some things right, but how does that entail one is then never wrong (educationally speaking)? Yet more smoke and mirrors. Put up (address the points I've raised) or...well, you know the rest!

Sashadroogie · Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 9:59 am Post subject:

Nope. That wold mean trawling through your incredibly long posts where you get hung up on a comma, or something, and ignore the main point of that lesson clip. Sorry, my fluffy buddy, but I take Scrivener and Harmer a lot more seriously academically than I do you. And if you think their suggested models are seriously flawed, how can you stand to be working in an environment that couldn't ever hope to reach these heights of EFL lessons?

fluffyhamster · Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 11:01 am Post subject:

Perhaps you'd care to spell out what the "main point" of that clip actually is then, Sasha? People can see that it provides a bit of "listening practice" and a pinch of salt I mean supposed grammar (in the form of a dictolecture), so you'll probably going to have to come up with a bit more than that to conclusively sell it. Just puffing the names Harmer or Scrivener (who don't have the first name Rolf, hell, they might not even have been that closely involved with selecting much less analyzing those clips, as they're busy jet-setting authors!) is again no answer. I could puff the name Pullum at you, but I doubt if you've ever consulted even the SIEG let alone the CambridgeGEL (that's where the syntactic descriptions on the previous page are coming from. Hmm, I wonder what he'd make of your disinterest in [the] grammar, and your unquestioning acceptance of any old examples+allied selective/dodgy analysis?).

Anyway, how wonderful it must be to think you're always right yet without ever actually going to the bother of establishing if you are. Makes it easy to spin dodgy lessons, it must be said ("or something" indeed!). Confidence tricksters springs to mind.

Sashadroogie · Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 12:52 pm Post subject:

The teachers in your environment are not noted for their level of skill.

Now where ARE those clips that illustrate your super-method? Or are we supposed to just read your posts and draw the inevitable conclusions?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

fluffyhamster · Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 1:15 pm Post subject:

But we're not talking about numbskulls in Japan (of which I'm sure there are plenty), or even about me (I left that Greyskull School of English aeons ago). We're talking about a clip that you with no other justification than it's your justification want to hold up as an example of a "super-method". Frankly I do not believe in supermethods (there is really only just honest-to-goodness thinking, research, selection, and planning), and am getting a little tired of your "whataboutery".

Next thing though I suppose you'll be telling us that daring to discuss what grammar was discussed in a lesson is just so much whataboutery about what grammar was discussed in that lesson. (That is, not even an inkling yet of the fall-down circularity of your "argument"?). Rolling Eyes

As a punishment for Rolf, I think he should be forced to write the following line 50 times with a worn-out whiteboard marker:

I must not invent sentences, much less try to analyze such sentences, without looking for genuine alternatives first.

Unfortunately and ironically (what with this being ELT) the onus of analyzing (and thus dismissing) iffy sentences usually falls on everyone but their inventors. Not that I haven't "enjoyed" pondering what was IMHO "off" about Rolf's lesson.

fluffyhamster · Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 1:47 pm Post subject:

"By the way", here are two questions that you have yet to answer, Sasha:

1) Care to spell out what the "main point" of that clip actually is?

2) Anything wrong with the following sentence? (That is, what would be essential to keep or add, and what is inessential and could be omitted?)

We came downstairs to find our presents which were hidden under the tree.

If you're as good a teacher as you claim to be, both should be easy to comprehensively answer, right?

PS: If you need some help with especially the second question, there's a crib sheet of sorts over the previous two pages that will help you out.

Sashadroogie · Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 2:43 pm Post subject:

Again, you are boring me. Not even reading your posts beyond the most cursory glance.

Getting quals means there is no need to defend against those who don't know any better.

happyinshangqiu · Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 2:53 pm Post subject:

Sashadroogie · Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 2:56 pm Post subject:

Sorry? Who's the troll again? You seem to have very individual understanding of common phrases like 'kick around', 'troll', or even 'happy'. Get back under your bridge, please.

happyinshangqiu · Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 3:27 pm Post subject: