Re: How to normalize this?

On Saturday, 9 February 2013 07:33:27 UTC+11, hugoko..._at_gmail.com wrote:
>
> Does anyone know a better way to normalize this set of FDs?

Of course. The solution is simple.

I don't know why I bother, but I will give you one more chance. I am happy to explain things to someone who is genuinely seeking undestanding; I am not happy to argue with someone who is fixed in their understanding.

In order to ensure that, in consideration of your behaviour in the past, I will lay down some ground rules for your interaction with me. If you do any of the following, I will stop reading your posts: • lie
• contradict yourself or behave hypocritically (doing exactly what you have railed against) • repeat the wrong thing, after what you have written has been identified as the wrong thing • demonstrate an inability to think logically. • demonstrate that you are not genuinely trying to learn (the question posed implies that (a) you do not know and (b) you want to learn, but your past behaviour demonstrated an intention that you were not genuine, you were evidently here for the engagement, and fixed on your beliefs). if you are unteachable, the exercise is a waste of time. (Remember, you posted the question, which means you do not know the answer.) • Respond to my explanatory posts in less than 24 hours. (I spend a lot of time putting them together. You need to treat that with respect, and think about them carefully, re-read them several times if necessary, before responding. That will indicate that you are genuinely learning. Knee-jerk reactions will demonstrate that you are doing so from your existing set of beliefs and understandings (which by definition means that you will remain in your present state of lack of knowledge; that you are not open to learning anything).

I need a one-line response from you that explicitly accepts or rejects this. If you accept, I will answer your question.

Cheers
Derek Received on Sat Feb 09 2013 - 01:39:40 CET