paul fox
- 2016-04-18
Yep......Saw that after I posted. M-W = American English and since AE is not 'real' English, I rest my case.
amused
- 2016-04-18
M-W Unabridged:
foodstuff, noun : a substance with food value: as a : the raw material of food before or after processing {a bountiful crop of cereal foodstuffs} b : an element of nutrition (as protein, carbohydrate, vitamin) {the sponge obtains its necessary foodstuffs from the plankton}
Paul Fox
- 2016-04-18
you are confusing the process of counting with grammatical terminology
Really? Some grammatical 'errors' are accepted as being normal speech these days, as in:- 'That supermarket has many different foods/fruits' or 'Two coffees please'
But 'foodstuffs'? Oh please!
'I'm moving house and have lots of 'stuffs'. Counting or grammatical terminology makes no difference.
As far as I can see, 'foodstuffs' is not in any dictionary, so that makes it colloquial, slang, or just plain WRONG ! (IMHO)
paul fox
- 2016-04-18
'Discretionary' was a bad choice of word to use. What I meant is that sometimes we can use a comma when one is not necessarily, necessary.
amused
- 2016-04-18
Haha...........comma usage is discretionary.
There, are, variations, in, grammatical, guidelines, for, comma, usage, as, well, as, in, the, use, of, ellipsis................................ but,neither, are, discretionary.
amused
- 2016-04-18
Foodstuffs?????Since when did 'food' or 'stuff' become a countable noun?
Neither are, but you are confusing the process of counting with grammatical terminology.
I suspect that you don't understand that statement.
paul fox
- 2016-04-17
Foodstuffs?????
Since when did 'food' or 'stuff' become a countable noun?
paul fox
- 2016-04-17
OOPS...... Einstein forgot to mention................Seems I should have referred to you as 'Ms Assumed' - apologies for my 'sexist' remark
paul fox
- 2016-04-17
Haha...........comma usage is discretionary. Look it up at the same time as you look up the meaning of 'stereotype'.
paul fox
- 2016-04-17
Nothing wrong with my comma usage, Mr Assumed.
You'll have to do better than that in order to pass your doctorate - lol
amused
- 2016-04-17
'Assumptions', (in
Your reasoning is a flawed as your comma usage.
paul fox
- 2016-04-17
Clearly you should study the accepted definition of 'stereotype', rather than continue your quest to gain a Doctorate on the subject of 'Assumptions', (in which you appear to be making excellent progress by the way!)
amused
- 2016-04-17
????? Typo ??????
!!!!!!! Yes !!!!!!!
'lazy', fit
????? Typo ??????
paul fox
- 2016-04-16
to much faith
????? Typo ??????
How do my comments about some students being 'lazy', fit into your definition of 'stereotype'?
amused
- 2016-04-16
difficulty in the supermarket without labels and trouble in the restaurant without
a menu. Everything in life has a 'label', and that often includes people.
I have to much faith in human nature to believe that you do not recognize the distinction between labeling foodstuffs and stereotyping individuals.
paul fox
- 2016-04-16
Clarification, not absolution!
As for labelling, it's a necessary part of life in order to communicate effectively. Your comment just strikes me as being one of 'political correctness', nothing more. You'd have difficulty in the supermarket without labels and trouble in the restaurant without a menu. Everything in life has a 'label', and that often includes people.
amused
- 2016-04-16
If you try 'unmotivated' then you are likely to get the reply 'Well motivate them', or if you
say 'uninterested', you will get 'Well make them interested' so it's far easier to say
'lazy' which then absolves the FT of any blame.
There is no need to label individuals. And there is no need to absolve oneself.
paul fox
- 2016-04-15
I feel no need to label individuals as 'lazy' when their behavioral
choices differ from my expectations and fail to feed my need for affirmation.
It's not your expectations that are called into question. It's the expectations of their parents, and that falls back on the school, (our employers) who then feel the need to channel those same expectations onto the FT.
The school wants to know why the student's parents are complaining that his or her English level hasn't improved under your instruction, so the adjective often used by all is, 'lazy'.
Every FT who has worked in China understands the pressure that is applied to students. Parents across China spend trillions of RMB every year on education because they see it as some kind of dutiful 'investment' in their child's future. After all, what responsible parent doesn't want 'the best' for their son or daughter?
Those parents want to see a 'return on their investment' by way of progress, and are quick to blame anyone other than their child when they don't see any.
So what other adjective are you going to use?
If you try 'unmotivated' then you are likely to get the reply 'Well motivate them', or if you say 'uninterested', you will get 'Well make them interested' so it's far easier to say 'lazy' which then absolves the FT of any blame.
amused
- 2016-04-15
It's the 'lazy' students
with the 'screw you' attitude that are denigrated, and in my opinion, deservedly so.
In the University that I attended in my own youth, I had 40 courses with perhaps 36 different professors. I remember two professors that, in my opinion, were boring and passionately wed to the sound of their own voice.
I 'cut' several of their classes and slept partially through others. I did master the material; I recall that Whitman & Emerson was one of the courses. The professors were eager to note my 'lack of participation' in class while grading my papers. The recognized my 'screw you' facial expression in class.
I'm certain that I now have some students that think I am boring and have no interest in improving their English. I respect their personal right to live their lives in the manner that they choose. If the University mandates attendance and they choose not to listen to me, despite my efforts to be informative and entertaining, so be it.
Neither I, nor the use of English, will play critically important roles in most of my students future lives. It is my belief that teachers earn both student attention and their respect. I feel no need to label individuals as 'lazy' when their behavioral choices differ from my expectations and fail to feed my need for affirmation.
paul fox
- 2016-04-14
In my modest opinion, teachers that denigrate students, online or otherwise, are themselves
worthy of disdain.
So stating a FACT is 'denigration' in your opinion?
I don't take delight in denigrating even the laziest of students - in fact I have worked tirelessly to help many of them. Some, ( well a FEW actually), have responded well and have made excellent progress while others remain resilient. It's the 'lazy' students with the 'screw you' attitude that are denigrated, and in my opinion, deservedly so.
amused
- 2016-04-14
I’ve probably taught thousands of Chinese
students and a few of those students would fit Mr. Fox’s description quite well
A few of your students (and mine) would fit each of the various stereotypes of Chinese students that litter this forum.
I'm quite certain that all of your students are individuals and deserving of Mr. Fox's, your, my and other FTs' efforts to assist them in their learning process.
In my modest opinion, teachers that denigrate students, online or otherwise, are themselves worthy of disdain.