HerO said:
Never use implications if u are trying 2 prove a claim since they only can suggests something without being actually conclusive...anywayz, since it's implied, u have no idea wat I was thinking or the intended meaning.
I'm more concerned with the THEORECTICAL side of things...whether u agree 2 the fact that "facilities facilitate learning"...if u agree 2 that then it must follow that lack of facilities would make learning harder...that's the whole point, u cannot agree 2 the former and then disagree 2 the latter.
U think there's an implicitness when saying "facilitates facilitate learning" thus 1 would gain better grades than those without?...man screw implicity, since u have NOT provided any quotes where I actually said having better or worser facilities will impact grades...if u think that when I say "better facilities make learning easy" means better facilities provide better grades, then that's ur assumption, I have never said that...
Anywayz, u have gone back and provided alot of quotes, good job, but man none of them actually rpoves anything significant, maybe u should right a lil statement down every quote so ppl will know the purpose of them rather than thinking you've done ur job juz by merely finding useless quotes that holds no relevance to anything u have claimed.
Ok look fuck this, this is the last post im posting here cos you obviously lack the mental ability to calculate a logical answer/explanation/argument.
One: Implicitness is within language, whatever you say, how you say it will always have the implicit nature of your meaning. Dont get that? Here's a brick, go knock yourself out with it, seems to be the equivalent of reading your fucking arguments.
Two: You must be a fucking asian, and one who does some sort of Commerce or Actuarial degree, cos your grammar and logic are pathetic to say the least.
Three: You have no grasp or concept of debating nor do you understand that you have NO case. Why? Because you have offered nothing but YOUR opinion, but by devaluing our own opinions by stating yours as fact, you have not only derived an elitist stance, you've just shown yourself to be a) a dickhead b) an idiot c) all of the above.
Four: You have stated you are interested in the theoretical side. Thank you, you have clarified why your arguments dont work, BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE POTENTIAL, rather than the actual. If you have any concept of those two words, you would realise that debating something in the theoretical, you would need a sound understanding and logical reasoning. You possess none. You have stated that having facilities would make learning easier, therefore not having would make it harder. How did you come to this conclusion? Is there some basis, some particular example? You offered the example that "if there was no toilet then it would make it harder to learn." You fail in your example because it does not include those who dont use the toilet, and more importantly if those people who dont use the facilities do just as well, your theory is again NULL AND VOID.
Five: Your incessant need to prove others as "contradictory" despite the fact that it is logically sounds, has a lot to say about your thinking. Debating/arguing with you is like the online equivalent of bashing my head against a wall, it produces me nothing but dead brain cells.
