Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - The Canadians are coming! The Canadians are coming!

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The Canadians are coming! The Canadians are coming!
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Job-related Discussion Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

northway

Joined: 05 Jul 2010

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:19 am Post subject:

Way to engage in invective with multiple posters simultaneously.

koreatimes

Joined: 07 Jun 2011

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:24 am Post subject:

northway wrote:

Way to engage in invective with multiple posters simultaneously.

You didn't reply to me independently of the other poster. Make an original post and I won't reply simultaneous/ly.

Booh ya!!!

denverdeath

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: Boo-sahn

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:47 am Post subject:

koreatimes wrote:

Quote:

Are you perhaps jealous?

Jealous of ego?

Quote:

then perhaps you can say there are no crappy international schools

I never made a claim there were no crappy international schools. I said there were not only 2, as you asserted. You don't see the difference?

Quote:

Is it elitism that there are only 2 recruiting agencies?

Well, it sure is something if you say ONLY 2. Use your brain.

Quote:

I guess I do not get what you mean by "Miami Vice Days".

Pink, shades. You don't get it?

Quote:

If you, Koreatimes aren't one of those people

If I am not one of those people who only visit 2 times a year? LOL, who are you? What was the point of your 2nd visit? Or is this the first of the 2012 year? Razz

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=mr+pink&pbx=1&oq=mr+pink&aq=f&aqi=g3g-s1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2907l5007l0l5459l7l7l0l0l0l0l245l1208l0.5.2l7l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=f52ce710510143e9&biw=1920&bih=976

Try google. Maybe his avatar of the movie character isn't the best ever, but it's not the worst either. It's not from miami vice...

koreatimes

Joined: 07 Jun 2011

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:37 am Post subject:

Quote:

It's not from miami vice...

I never said it was.

It's called a joke. Another third party comment.

denverdeath

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: Boo-sahn

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:03 am Post subject:

koreatimes wrote:

Quote:

It's not from miami vice...

I never said it was.

It's called a joke. Another third party comment.

Ohhhhhhhhh...

...guess I'm the only one who didn't get it, huh? Keep ur day job, please, Comic Boy.

jrwhite82

Joined: 22 May 2010

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:55 pm Post subject:

koreatimes wrote:

Quote:

Believe me, there are A LOT of "crappy" schools out there based on these reviews.

But are they? I will enlighten you, THEY ARE NOT.

This to me means that you are referring to there being no crappy international schools. Not recruiters. He said, "there are a lot of crappy schools". You said, "THEY ARE NOT." See the subject of his sentence was crappy schools. You quoted his sentence and replied that they are not crappy or there are no crappy schools. Therefore the pronoun they in your sentences should refer to the previous sentence's subject. In this case "schools" not recruiters. So yeah, you did screw that up.

koreatimes

Joined: 07 Jun 2011

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:04 am Post subject:

jrwhite82 wrote:

koreatimes wrote:

Quote:

Believe me, there are A LOT of "crappy" schools out there based on these reviews.

But are they? I will enlighten you, THEY ARE NOT.

Ok, logically think this out. This person mentioned 2 recruiters? I didn't assume they were schools. So, I replied with more than 2.

More than 2 what? More than 2 RECRUITERS. Look back, they stated, "There are 2 main recruiting agencies: ISS and Search Associates."

Anyone with common sense would have seen I meant recruiters. The number used originally was in reference to recruiters, not schools.

CONTEXT PEOPLE, CONTEXT. OTHERWISE, YOU CAN TAKE ANYTHING A PERSON SAYS AND TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT. YOUR CHOICE. I KNOW WHAT I MEANT. YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS SOMETHING ELSE. THAT IS YOUR FALSE CREATION.

CONTEXT PEOPLE, CONTEXT. OTHERWISE, YOU CAN TAKE ANYTHING A PERSON SAYS AND TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT. YOUR CHOICE. I KNOW WHAT I MEANT. YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS SOMETHING ELSE. THAT IS YOUR FALSE CREATION.

CONTEXT PEOPLE, CONTEXT. OTHERWISE, YOU CAN TAKE ANYTHING A PERSON SAYS AND TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT. YOUR CHOICE. I KNOW WHAT I MEANT. YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS SOMETHING ELSE. THAT IS YOUR FALSE CREATION.

CONTEXT PEOPLE, CONTEXT. OTHERWISE, YOU CAN TAKE ANYTHING A PERSON SAYS AND TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT. YOUR CHOICE. I KNOW WHAT I MEANT. YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS SOMETHING ELSE. THAT IS YOUR FALSE CREATION.

CONTEXT PEOPLE, CONTEXT. OTHERWISE, YOU CAN TAKE ANYTHING A PERSON SAYS AND TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT. YOUR CHOICE. I KNOW WHAT I MEANT. YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS SOMETHING ELSE. THAT IS YOUR FALSE CREATION.

koreatimes

Joined: 07 Jun 2011

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:10 am Post subject:

Quote:

This to me means that you are referring to there being no crappy international schools.

No, that means 0 total.
What I meant was not necessarily 0.

For example if I said I don't think all 10 apples are good, that doesn't mean 0 are good. 1 could be rotten, 9 could be rotten. It means I think at least 10% of the apples are good. It's true I intended more than 10% were good, and I never made a declarative statement that anything was absolutely 0% or 100%.

Your interpretation implies I meant 0% good or 100% rotten. I stated they were not 100% (but could be 1-99% theoretically). Your reading of it is wrong, either you made a simple mistake or you have a reading comprehension problem.

Last edited by koreatimes on Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:20 am; edited 3 times in total

koreatimes

Joined: 07 Jun 2011

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:14 am Post subject:

denverdeath wrote:

koreatimes wrote:

Quote:

It's not from miami vice...

I never said it was.

It's called a joke. Another third party comment.

Ohhhhhhhhh...

...guess I'm the only one who didn't get it, huh? Keep ur day job, please, Comic Boy.

It's not uncommon for people to joke about others who might wear funny clothes or accessories that remind them of a famous celebrity or movie/video. We even intentionally do this on Halloween.

koreatimes

Joined: 07 Jun 2011

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:23 am Post subject:

Quote:

You said, "THEY ARE NOT."

Quote:

Believe me, there are A LOT of "crappy" schools out there based on these reviews.

Second mistake, the reference in CONTEXT was "a lot are not good". In order to jump into 2 other people's conversation, you need to follow what the previous person said.

Person 1: A lot of the people are wearing jeans.
Person 2: No they aren't.
Person 3: Are you saying no one is wearing jeans?
Person 2: No, I am stating NOT a lot are. More like a few, but not zero.

Hope this clarifies logical discourse. Carry on, but please read in context from now on.

northway

Joined: 05 Jul 2010

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:52 am Post subject:

koreatimes wrote:

Quote:

You said, "THEY ARE NOT."

Quote:

Believe me, there are A LOT of "crappy" schools out there based on these reviews.

Even with context, it's difficult to follow what you're saying when you don't say it clearly. While your counterpart's posts are quite easy to follow, your responses are not. If you want to avoid people misunderstanding your posts, you should write more clearly.

jrwhite82

Joined: 22 May 2010

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:56 am Post subject:

koreatimes wrote:

Quote:

then perhaps you can say there are no crappy international schools

I never made a claim there were no crappy international schools. I said there were not only 2, as you asserted. You don't see the difference?

But you did assume they were schools. Here, you also said, "there were not only 2". After talking about schools in your first sentence. And quoting his original sentence about international schools. So, you are the one who is not reading in context. Clearly, he was talking about recruiters not schools. You are the one who is arguing nonsense (yet again).

You crack me up Koreatimes. I think part of the problem here is that you don't quote people correctly. First, you cut people's paragraphs up, ignoring large portions of text (which have made you wrongly comprehend things in the past). Then you also don't attribute the poster's words to their name, which I think also works to confuse you.

koreatimes

Joined: 07 Jun 2011

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:21 am Post subject:

Quote:

If you want to avoid people misunderstanding your posts, you should write more clearly.

If you understand the use of English, then it is quite easy to comprehend. We also do the same with verbs like "do" and "can't", and unfortunately this leads to stereotyping and worse prejudice.

Here's an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Men_Can%27t_Jump

Happy studying.

Quote:

Here, you also said, "there were not only 2".

Quote:

Clearly, he was talking about recruiters not schools.

Yes, but it seems like you are confusing my comment about recruiters and my other comment about schools. I think there are more than 200 schools. The recruiter is like a chip at a casino. You talk to 1 school, you get 1 school offer. You talk to a recruiter, they are a bigger chip, like talking to 100 schools.

So, indirectly, working with a recruiter you can be connected with more schools. If you only want to treat this as 1 school per recruiter, your loss not mine.

Quote:

I think part of the problem here is that you don't quote people correctly.

I am sorry for quoting people in an undesired manner. This however has nothing to do with you butting in and commenting about a conversation I was having with someone else. You can't deny that you did not make those comments I "misquoted". So, why are you replying? What do you get out of misreading my comments to someone else, and then blaming me for not quoting them the way you want so you could have read them more accurately?

Either learn to read the quotes the way they were intended, by following the conversation, or don't snipe. This is the problem. You snipe repliers feel so witty because you can analyze one part of a quote and take it out of context. This is why I quote the way I do. I don't want you to be involved in this unless you know how to follow the conversation.

So, continue what you do if you must, I will continue to do what I do because it exposes the truth.

jrwhite82

Joined: 22 May 2010

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:33 am Post subject:

The person you were speaking with was also confused, as were others who also commented. Once again Koreatimes, the only thing you are exposing is that you can't communicate well.

koreatimes

Joined: 07 Jun 2011

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:45 am Post subject:

jrwhite82 wrote:

The person you were speaking with was also confused, as were others who also commented. Once again Koreatimes, the only thing you are exposing is that you can't communicate well.

I outlined how my comments you replied to were intended.

Now I will knock you down 1 comment at a time until you are completely destroyed.

COMMENT 1 for jrwhite82

Quote:

Is it elitism that there are only 2 recruiting agencies?

The elitism part is subjective and I don't care to dwell on it. It's the latter part.

Since you like to read things literally without context, how do you justify that comment of there only being 2 recruiting agencies? Clearly there are not, and who would you say is not communicating well?

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Job-related Discussion Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe