- Re: Come back,涓冩牸, pleaseposted on 03/13/2006
才两三天，再潇洒的角色也拉不下脸面。过阵子再说吧。
不懂七格的文采本来够用，为何常常口不择言，少林拳和下三烂齐飞，何必？
版主删帖可以理解，赶人则矫枉过正、损人害己了。
- posted on 03/14/2006
I think fighting dirty is a conscious choice Sieg has made for himself. I don’t necessarily agree with his choice but I understand where he is coming from. You think any gentleman who plays fair can fight with someone like Bill o’reilly? Not a chance.
The major difference between him and “Fen Qing” is that he is capable of logical thinking. As a matter of fact, in a serious debate, he is one of the most self-disciplined persons I’ve ever seen. :-)
Well, it is too late to say these now…
- Re: Come back,涓冩牸, pleaseposted on 03/14/2006
逻辑思维与自律是两种不同的东西，现实中也常不相伴。
同理，逻辑与愤青与自律也都是不同类的东西，现实中也往往是杂处的。
The major difference between him and “Fen Qing” is that he is capable of logical thinking. As a matter of fact, in a serious debate, he is one of the most self-disciplined persons I’ve ever seen. :-)
Well, it is too late to say these now…
- posted on 03/14/2006
What I mean is that he is self-disciplined in his logical thinking. :-)
qualities wrote:
逻辑思维与自律是两种不同的东西，现实中也常不相伴。
同理，逻辑与愤青与自律也都是不同类的东西，现实中也往往是杂处的。
The major difference between him and “Fen Qing” is that he is capable of logical thinking. As a matter of fact, in a serious debate, he is one of the most self-disciplined persons I’ve ever seen. :-)
Well, it is too late to say these now…
- posted on 03/14/2006
may be different,hehe.
your original wording is "in a serious debate, he is one of the most self-disciplined persons I’ve ever seen".
So, you mean "he is self-disciplined in serious bebate where he only
use logical thinking" or something like that:)?
hehe , just kidding leh.
Susan wrote:
What I mean is that he is self-disciplined in his logical thinking. :-)
qualities wrote:
逻辑思维与自律是两种不同的东西，现实中也常不相伴。
同理，逻辑与愤青与自律也都是不同类的东西，现实中也往往是杂处的。
The major difference between him and “Fen Qing” is that he is capable of logical thinking. As a matter of fact, in a serious debate, he is one of the most self-disciplined persons I’ve ever seen. :-)
Well, it is too late to say these now…
- posted on 03/14/2006
That is not exactly what I meant. :)
For instance, Sieg can go extra miles to ensure that his reasonings don't contain flaws, even if they may not be obvious to his opponents. He is willing to recognise valid points and to give others benefit of doubt. He also keeps a good balance of idealism and pragmatism, so he is unlikely to go extreme in either way.
That is not when he is bickering with others, of course. :)
Anyway, next time I will try paying someone compliments before they got killed. :)
you mean and I see wrote:
may be different,hehe.
your original wording is "in a serious debate, he is one of the most self-disciplined persons I’ve ever seen".
So, you mean "he is self-disciplined in serious bebate where he only
use logical thinking" or something like that:)?
hehe , just kidding leh. - Re: Come back,涓冩牸, pleaseposted on 03/14/2006
What are you so bitter about? Come here, have some weed, you will feel better. :)))))
- posted on 03/14/2006
Those 愤青 you think don't have the kind of logic and self-dicipline
may do have these things too but they just don't show it either during
street fighting situation, i.e., "when he is bickering with others".
So, situation first, character second, side by side, comparision.
We can't compare someone in their fighting jacket with others with
their academic suite, right:)?
I am not with either side but just want to be logic and fair, even
though I might not be, at least I tried.
hehe
Susan wrote:
That is not exactly what I meant. :)
For instance, Sieg can go extra miles to ensure that his reasonings don't contain flaws, even if they may not be obvious to his opponents. He is willing to recognise valid points and to give others benefit of doubt. He also keeps a good balance of idealism and pragmatism, so he is unlikely to go extreme in either way.
That is not when he is bickering with others, of course. :)
Anyway, next time I will try paying someone compliments before they got killed. :)
- posted on 03/14/2006
Nope, Sieg tried logic first, his points were never even picked up.
Anyway like i said it is too late to talk about these.
with the same logic wrote:
Those 愤青 you think don't have the kind of logic and self-dicipline
may do have these things too but they just don't show it either during
street fighting situation, i.e., "when he is bickering with others".
So, situation first, character second, side by side, comparision.
We can't compare someone in their fighting jacket with others with
their academic suite, right:)?
I am not with either side but just want to be logic and fair, even
though I might not be, at least I tried.
hehe - posted on 03/14/2006
I am even not talking about the fight, I am talking about your original
comments several posts back.
Oh well, it's a nice day, isn't it?
Susan wrote:
Nope, Sieg tried logic first, his points were never even picked up.
Anyway like i said it is too late to talk about these.
with the same logic wrote:
Those 愤青 you think don't have the kind of logic and self-dicipline
may do have these things too but they just don't show it either during
street fighting situation, i.e., "when he is bickering with others".
So, situation first, character second, side by side, comparision.
We can't compare someone in their fighting jacket with others with
their academic suite, right:)?
I am not with either side but just want to be logic and fair, even
though I might not be, at least I tried.
hehe
Susan wrote:
That is not exactly what I meant. :)
For instance, Sieg can go extra miles to ensure that his reasonings don't contain flaws, even if they may not be obvious to his opponents. He is willing to recognise valid points and to give others benefit of doubt. He also keeps a good balance of idealism and pragmatism, so he is unlikely to go extreme in either way.
That is not when he is bickering with others, of course. :)
Anyway, next time I will try paying someone compliments before they got killed. :)
- Re: Come back,涓冩牸, pleaseposted on 03/14/2006
话要好好的说，何必用鸟语说人坏话呢！何必拿肉麻当有趣呢？ - Re: Come back,涓冩牸, pleaseposted on 03/14/2006
The fighting incidents in the past few months here weren't really caused by different political views, but by the firce jealousy of those inferior. Hehe, talking about human nature. :-) - Re: Come back,涓冩牸, pleaseposted on 03/14/2006
当局者迷，旁观者清。
onlooker wrote:
The fighting incidents in the past few months here weren't really caused by different political views, but by the firce jealousy of those inferior. Hehe, talking about human nature. :-) - Re: Come back,涓冩牸, pleaseposted on 03/14/2006
could we just calm down and move on? - posted on 03/15/2006
Sigh, I was trying to be subtle here, do I have to be blunt? My “nope” is the answer to your speculation below. 愤青 were given a chance to show their logic and self-discipline, they never took it. So what can I say?
Now I officially sacrificed myself defending my own logic. :)
Peace on earth.
Nope wrote:
Those 愤青 you think don't have the kind of logic and self-dicipline
may do have these things too but they just don't show it either during
street fighting situation, i.e., "when he is bickering with others". - posted on 03/15/2006
I already said I am not talking about the fight but your original
comments. You sleeped a night and forget the process? You jumped from
a reply to your post to the several posts way back, that's your logic?
Go back to look at the thread.
Tell you the truth, I was and am trying to help here.
Sigh, I should mention my good intention first, which I thought
was so clear and...never mind.
I just don't want to be labled by the moderator as a trouble maker
and illogical,
so, see ya!
Susan wrote:
Sigh, I was trying to be subtle here, do I have to be blunt? My “nope” is the answer to your speculation below. 愤青 were given a chance to show their logic and self-discipline, they never took it. So what can I say?
Now I officially sacrificed myself defending my own logic. :)
Peace on earth.
Nope wrote:
Those 愤青 you think don't have the kind of logic and self-dicipline
may do have these things too but they just don't show it either during
street fighting situation, i.e., "when he is bickering with others". - posted on 03/15/2006
No I am always very consistent on my logic. :) That is the basic self-discipline.
Believe me, I am trying very very hard to understand you. :) Don't go, help me out here. And don't be pissed. I may be slow but I am willing to learn. :)
Ok, let me go back to my original comments. I belive you are not satisfied with my comments below:
"The major difference between him and “Fen Qing” is that he is capable of logical thinking. As a matter of fact, in a serious debate, he is one of the most self-disciplined persons I’ve ever seen. :-) "
The reason that you are not satisfied is because you think it is unfair to compare the Sieg in "academic suit" --- your word --- with the Fen Qings in "fighting jacket", because they are in two different situations, one being a serious debate, the other being a street fight. Therefore you think I can't make the conclusion above, which contains two points:
1. Fen Qings are incapable of logical thinking.
2. Sieg is self-disciplined.
Am I understanding you correctly?
welllll wrote:
I already said I am not talking about the fight but your original
comments. You sleeped a night and forget the process? You jumped from
a reply to your post to the several posts way back, that's your logic?
Go back to look at the thread.
Tell you the truth, I was and am trying to help here.
Sigh, I should mention my good intention first, which I thought
was so clear and...never mind.
I just don't want to be labled by the moderator as a trouble maker
and illogical,
so, see ya! - posted on 03/15/2006
讨论问题就事论事的过程中，谁先声明自己的动机良好逻辑无误，谁就先违反
规则。因为一说出这种论心迹的话，就很快演变成诛心的过程。这就无解了，
因为，我觉得我很诚心，也很逻辑，对方说，我也很诚心也很逻辑……没完了。
动辄宣称自己站在道义的制高点上和技术的制高点上的人，不能讨论问题。因
为他／她已经先验地缺乏必要的客观了。平心而论，这里面有些人是“真诚”
地相信自己的逻辑和道义的，因为他们无法理解，别人也可以有同样的想法而
且同样地内心合理。
这个模式，无法对各种争论起到评判作用，但可以从旁帮助观战者判断各自的
“逻辑”。网络其实非常好在这方面，你只要把某个人的某一些帖子排列出来，
做一个简单的直观统计就行了。有自知之明的人或有意愿自知的人，不妨把自
己的网络讨论帖子也捋一下，必定受益匪浅。
Susan wrote:
No I am always very consistent on my logic. :) That is the basic self-discipline.
Believe me, I am trying very very hard to understand you. :) Don't go, help me out here. And don't be pissed. I may be slow but I am willing to learn. :)
welllll wrote:
I already said I am not talking about the fight but your original
comments. You sleeped a night and forget the process? You jumped from
a reply to your post to the several posts way back, that's your logic?
Go back to look at the thread.
Tell you the truth, I was and am trying to help here.
Sigh, I should mention my good intention first, which I thought
was so clear and...never mind.
I just don't want to be labled by the moderator as a trouble maker
and illogical,
so, see ya!
Susan wrote:
Sigh, I was trying to be subtle here, do I have to be blunt? My “nope” is the answer to your speculation below. 愤青 were given a chance to show their logic and self-discipline, they never took it. So what can I say?
Now I officially sacrificed myself defending my own logic. :)
Peace on earth.
Nope wrote:
Those 愤青 you think don't have the kind of logic and self-dicipline
may do have these things too but they just don't show it either during
street fighting situation, i.e., "when he is bickering with others". - posted on 03/15/2006
Actually I was thinking about 动机 in a debate lately. I've learned in some class some years ago that a debator should never question her opponent's 动机 or background. If the opponent 逻辑无误, then no matter how bad his 动机 is, he wins the case.
So, 动机良好 doesn't even matter in a debate. Of course we hope everybody 动机良好, and nobody is 夏洛克; but 鲍西亚 defeated 夏洛克 not because she was 动机良好 but because she was 逻辑无误.
Now talking about 逻辑无误, I can't make that self-claim coz it would be too subjective. I can only say that I am consistent, and you are certainly welcome challenge that. :)
插一嘴 wrote:
讨论问题就事论事的过程中，谁先声明自己的动机良好逻辑无误，谁就先违反
规则。因为一说出这种论心迹的话，就很快演变成诛心的过程。这就无解了，
因为，我觉得我很诚心，也很逻辑，对方说，我也很诚心也很逻辑……没完了。
动辄宣称自己站在道义的制高点上和技术的制高点上的人，不能讨论问题。因
为他／她已经先验地缺乏必要的客观了。平心而论，这里面有些人是“真诚”
地相信自己的逻辑和道义的，因为他们无法理解，别人也可以有同样的想法而
且同样地内心合理。
这个模式，无法对各种争论起到评判作用，但可以从旁帮助观战者判断各自的
“逻辑”。网络其实非常好在这方面，你只要把某个人的某一些帖子排列出来，
做一个简单的直观统计就行了。有自知之明的人或有意愿自知的人，不妨把自
己的网络讨论帖子也捋一下，必定受益匪浅。 - posted on 03/15/2006
你这是对牛弹琴，那些愤青哪里懂这些道理，只要能张口骂人就行了。
插一嘴 wrote:
讨论问题就事论事的过程中，谁先声明自己的动机良好逻辑无误，谁就先违反
规则。因为一说出这种论心迹的话，就很快演变成诛心的过程。这就无解了，
因为，我觉得我很诚心，也很逻辑，对方说，我也很诚心也很逻辑……没完了。
动辄宣称自己站在道义的制高点上和技术的制高点上的人，不能讨论问题。因
为他／她已经先验地缺乏必要的客观了。平心而论，这里面有些人是“真诚”
地相信自己的逻辑和道义的，因为他们无法理解，别人也可以有同样的想法而
且同样地内心合理。
这个模式，无法对各种争论起到评判作用，但可以从旁帮助观战者判断各自的
“逻辑”。网络其实非常好在这方面，你只要把某个人的某一些帖子排列出来，
做一个简单的直观统计就行了。有自知之明的人或有意愿自知的人，不妨把自
己的网络讨论帖子也捋一下，必定受益匪浅。
Susan wrote:
No I am always very consistent on my logic. :) That is the basic self-discipline.
Believe me, I am trying very very hard to understand you. :) Don't go, help me out here. And don't be pissed. I may be slow but I am willing to learn. :)
welllll wrote:
I already said I am not talking about the fight but your original
comments. You sleeped a night and forget the process? You jumped from
a reply to your post to the several posts way back, that's your logic?
Go back to look at the thread.
Tell you the truth, I was and am trying to help here.
Sigh, I should mention my good intention first, which I thought
was so clear and...never mind.
I just don't want to be labled by the moderator as a trouble maker
and illogical,
so, see ya!
Susan wrote:
Sigh, I was trying to be subtle here, do I have to be blunt? My “nope” is the answer to your speculation below. 愤青 were given a chance to show their logic and self-discipline, they never took it. So what can I say?
Now I officially sacrificed myself defending my own logic. :)
Peace on earth.
Nope wrote:
Those 愤青 you think don't have the kind of logic and self-dicipline
may do have these things too but they just don't show it either during
street fighting situation, i.e., "when he is bickering with others". - posted on 03/15/2006
其实不愤青的人更容易犯这个错误。因为愤青骂人是不讲逻辑和道义的。
只有动辄标榜自己的逻辑和道义的人才容易落入这个自误而不自觉呢。
yes wrote:
你这是对牛弹琴，那些愤青哪里懂这些道理，只要能张口骂人就行了。
插一嘴 wrote:
讨论问题就事论事的过程中，谁先声明自己的动机良好逻辑无误，谁就先违反
规则。因为一说出这种论心迹的话，就很快演变成诛心的过程。这就无解了，
因为，我觉得我很诚心，也很逻辑，对方说，我也很诚心也很逻辑……没完了。
动辄宣称自己站在道义的制高点上和技术的制高点上的人，不能讨论问题。因
为他／她已经先验地缺乏必要的客观了。平心而论，这里面有些人是“真诚”
地相信自己的逻辑和道义的，因为他们无法理解，别人也可以有同样的想法而
且同样地内心合理。
这个模式，无法对各种争论起到评判作用，但可以从旁帮助观战者判断各自的
“逻辑”。网络其实非常好在这方面，你只要把某个人的某一些帖子排列出来，
做一个简单的直观统计就行了。有自知之明的人或有意愿自知的人，不妨把自
己的网络讨论帖子也捋一下，必定受益匪浅。
Susan wrote:
No I am always very consistent on my logic. :) That is the basic self-discipline.
Believe me, I am trying very very hard to understand you. :) Don't go, help me out here. And don't be pissed. I may be slow but I am willing to learn. :)
welllll wrote:
I already said I am not talking about the fight but your original
comments. You sleeped a night and forget the process? You jumped from
a reply to your post to the several posts way back, that's your logic?
Go back to look at the thread.
Tell you the truth, I was and am trying to help here.
Sigh, I should mention my good intention first, which I thought
was so clear and...never mind.
I just don't want to be labled by the moderator as a trouble maker
and illogical,
so, see ya!
Susan wrote:
Sigh, I was trying to be subtle here, do I have to be blunt? My “nope” is the answer to your speculation below. 愤青 were given a chance to show their logic and self-discipline, they never took it. So what can I say?
Now I officially sacrificed myself defending my own logic. :)
Peace on earth.
Nope wrote:
Those 愤青 you think don't have the kind of logic and self-dicipline
may do have these things too but they just don't show it either during
street fighting situation, i.e., "when he is bickering with others". - Re: Come back,涓冩牸, pleaseposted on 03/15/2006
愤青=李逵
精英=宋江
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation