|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
evaforsure
Joined: 26 Jun 2004
Posts: 1217
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:40 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| I think need is more objective than want. WW wanted only "qualified" FTs to respond, but at least some posters here are of the opinion that he didn't need to do that in order to get the answers he required - in fact it was counterproductive because he wouldn't get valid replies from experienced, though unqualified, FTs. |
They can be of any opinon they want, it will still not qualify them to answer the question due to the fact that the op has already excluded them from consideration.
| Quote: |
evaforsure wrote:
and remember exclusion is not rejection
JGC458
In this case it's pretty much the same. I do wish people wouldn't nitpick... |
It is only the same in your eyes and isnt nitpicking also included in disecting his request for qualified teachers.
| Quote: |
| JGC458 Is the use of the 3rd person directed at me?? What's my/some other FT's ego got to do with it? I've clearly shown (and others are of the same opinion) that WW would have had more, valid replies had he also accepted responses from experienced, though unqualified, FTs. In a previous post I've already explained how experienced, though unqualified, FTs could justifiably have felt slighted. |
You know what they say, if the ego fits we cant aquit, no actually not aimed at anyone but more towrds a preveailing attitude and tone onthis board to be insulted at the drop of a hat and to carry on as to the poster instead of the subject.....the criteria is often "qualified" as opposed to "unqualified" in any number of request, from jobs postings to opinions and involvment with surveys.
| Quote: |
evaforsure wrote:
This practice is utilized often on this board to in effect harass posters whose opinions or questions are unpopular with others.
JGC458 Are you merely providing information, or are you trying to imply that I am harassing WW? |
Dont let your ego get in the way of just a simply observation. As to harassing WW, it is doughtful he even cares enough to cosider ths harrassment.
| Quote: |
JGC458 In short:
eva, you still don't appear to have worked out the quote function, and as has happened from time to time, you either refuse to acknowledge or simply don't understand my point of view. Either way, I've clearly stated what I wanted to say on WW's wording and on the qualified/unqualified FT issue so if you still don't understand, so be it. |
Third option is I just don�t agree with you. I understand the position quite well and have identified it as ego based reaction to being excluded from a op's question. What I don�t understand is why not allow those who post offerings to engage in dialogue with who they want and about what they want, instead of trying to foster and force viewpoints in an effort to waylay the discussion. Would you be equally offended if the question had been address to blacks, or people of Hindu faith�or how about a question about female products�would that leave you with a feeling of rejection. Do you feel that the marketing divisions of women�s hygiene needs have left you out due to the fact that there a whole aisle dedicated to products you cant use. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
