Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shamen)
    Yeah, but if you remember, we started arguing something entirely new, so, in true oilcan style, I'll say this to you "pwnd tbh m8".
    Pwned. How?

    I haven't rushed through the 6 stages like you so easily did.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oilcan)
    Aww, I'm sorry you love online drama and that I'm getting to you hence calling me "childish" and "pathetic" but that isn't my fault.

    You did the rest of the damage in this post and when people wake up in the morning and look through this thread, you'll be the laughing stock.

    But do carry on; the path of self-destruction can always provide humour to those who helped it happen.
    You've just lessened the chances that I will be the laughing stock, by saying that. People will wake up and think, oilcan, what an arse... Again, signs of your existence in a false pretense, as you think you are self-righteous and believe you posess no flaws what-so-ever.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shamen)
    LOL, yeah, think you just got "owned" oilcan, you are not so "leet" now are you, you got "pwned".
    You said this already mate?

    Running out of stuff to say, are we?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oilcan)
    Pwned. How?

    I haven't rushed through the 6 stages like you so easily did.
    Well, I think you've just "pwnd" yourself there by making up some phoney "6 stages of being pwned" - i.e. you're a loser.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oilcan)
    You said this already mate?

    Running out of stuff to say, are we?
    No! In fact I'm finding more reasons to say you got "pwnd". But you were still in that false pretense, that you thought it was down to me and not you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shamen)
    Oh, and you did have worthy debate material, and I actually agreed with you on that particular debate in question... But then we started moving onto intelligence and "Average Joes" being able to obtain A*s... Thats where we all disagree with you, loser, see, false pretense.
    "We"? Who is we? 2...3...people out of hundreds in these forums.

    You are mere pawns in the TSR machine.

    Yet again, you resort to name-calling as an infant would but I guess that's you all over really. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oilcan)
    You said this already mate?

    Running out of stuff to say, are we?
    Oh, and that repetition is also called "rubbing it in".

    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shamen)
    Again, I say, this could be because of time pressure, nerves etc... You're quite shallow and seem unwilling to think beyond "basic principles".
    I didn't know you were part of this debate.

    Then again, I wouldn't expect more of you. Like the minion you are, you just jump on the bandwagon with someone else, as you can't hold your own.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=oilcan]"We"? Who is we? 2...3...people out of hundreds in these forums.

    You are mere pawns in the TSR machine.

    (Original post by oilcan)
    Yet again, you resort to name-calling as an infant would but I guess that's you all over really. :rolleyes:
    Ahh, so you are copying me with the use of "infant" which is close enough to childlike. And err, again, false pretense; you believe that it's only me and 2 + 2 = 5 and the other guy who was here earlier that think you're wrong? LOL, that's just wrong, it's wrong to be that self-righteous.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oilcan)
    I didn't know you were part of this debate.

    Then again, I wouldn't expect more of you. Like the minion you are, you just jump on the bandwagon with someone else, as you can't hold your own.
    Actually I started this debate with you, then 2 + 2 = 5 decided to join in. But you'd forgotten that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shamen)
    Well, I think you've just "pwnd" yourself there by making up some phoney "6 stages of being pwned" - i.e. you're a loser.
    "Making up"? LoL.

    Your ignorance has yet again made you look foolish.
    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    :rolleyes: ^
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by oilcan)
    No and you know this as well as I do. It's not my fault if you can't interpret a message through an example. But if you think that people who have been studying a course for 2 years and have the title of the course right in front of them, yet still fail to copy it correctly are the cream of the crop then that's up to you.
    If the example is a bad one, it reflects badly on the message.

    Oh- what if they have dyslexia? Well, anyway.


    Well, actually it would because if someone is unsure of a word and looks at the top of their paper then it shows they used more intelligence than someone who doesn't know how to spell something and instead of merely looking at the paper in front of them, just guesses... It would prove that they pay attention to detail and are on the ball thus giving the impression that they have slightly more about them than someone who spells it incorrectly. And unless examiner's are on a different wavelength, where mispelled words are put in better stead than correctly spelled ones, I'm sure they'd agree.
    I'll ignore the irony here of "examiners" being spelled with an apostrophe.

    But despite copying not being the most taxing of activities, it doesn't prove that the candidate knows the syllabus. It doesn't prove that they can support an argument well. It doesn't prove that they have intelligence. I've miscopied phone numbers, addresses, spellings before, despite it hardly being the most difficult activity I will ever face. Anyone can make a mistake.



    Does it? Or is this in fact the case with you? I gave you one example and backed it up with a site. Yet you fail to give an example conflicting this and fail to back it up in any way shape or form. All of your posts are entirely based on opinion without a scrap of fact whatsoever.
    What's that? You want me to Google my argument? Well, it's your debate.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/304749.stm
    http://education.guardian.co.uk/gcse...606289,00.html


    oilcan, if GCSEs are really so easy to pass at A* grades, you should be ble to prove me wrong so easily by scoring many more than I did, considering that with your evident intelligence ( :rolleyes: ) you should really be able to do so much better. I would be interested to hear your predicted grades, and how they have affected your argument. Too many "Average Joes" pushing the boundaries up, are there?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oilcan)
    I can see the 6 stages of pwnage are prevailing in your case.

    The 6 stages of pwnage are:

    Arrogance
    Reduction in arrogance
    Obscenities
    Agreement
    Ass kissing
    Sympathy
    Google is on my side too. How sad you are.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shamen)
    Ahh, so you are copying me with the use of "infant" which is close enough to childlike. And err, again, false pretense; you believe that it's only me and 2 + 2 = 5 and the other guy who was here earlier that think you're wrong? LOL, that's just wrong, it's wrong to be that self-righteous.
    You see these words "false pretense", "loser" you use have no impact anymore because they are just trite.

    The fact you infer that in your opinion I am copying you merely highlights your sheepish, derivative attitude. unlike you, I kept myself in tact and didn't just copy verbatim as you have done so many times before.

    I'm also interested to know who else disagrees with me...or is this just yet more drivel to try and support your weak weak argument?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oilcan)
    You see these words "false pretense", "loser" you use have no impact anymore because they are just trite.

    The fact you infer that in your opinion I am copying you merely highlights your sheepish, derivative attitude. unlike you, I kept myself in tact and didn't just copy verbatim as you have done so many times before.

    I'm also interested to know who else disagrees with me...or is this just yet more drivel to try and support your weak weak argument?
    Verbatim or non verbatim, the meaning is still the same... But I find it reassuringly comforting that you decided to change the word slightly, really I do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shamen)
    Google is on my side too. How sad you are.
    We all have google. Do we all know how to use it though? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Your search - stages+ pwnage - did not match any documents.

    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    If the example is a bad one, it reflects badly on the message.

    Oh- what if they have dyslexia? Well, anyway.



    I'll ignore the irony here of "examiners" being spelled with an apostrophe.

    But despite copying not being the most taxing of activities, it doesn't prove that the candidate knows the syllabus. It doesn't prove that they can support an argument well. It doesn't prove that they have intelligence. I've miscopied phone numbers, addresses, spellings before, despite it hardly being the most difficult activity I will ever face. Anyone can make a mistake.





    What's that? You want me to Google my argument? Well, it's your debate.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/304749.stm
    http://education.guardian.co.uk/gcse...606289,00.html


    oilcan, if GCSEs are really so easy to pass at A* grades, you should be ble to prove me wrong so easily by scoring many more than I did, considering that with your evident intelligence ( :rolleyes: ) you should really be able to do so much better. I would be interested to hear your predicted grades, and how they have affected your argument. Too many "Average Joes" pushing the boundaries up, are there?
    it doesn't prove that the candidate knows the syllabus.

    Knowing a syllabus doesn't prove someone is intelligent either. All it shows is that they have a capacity to learn.

    It doesn't prove that they have intelligence.
    Just as I said. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

    The sites also provided support for my argument too, I quote:

    "Researchers concluded that GCSE syllabuses and exams in geography, French, religious studies and physical education from 1996 were at least as demanding as their O level and CSE equivalents in 1976.

    Similar conclusions were made about A levels in history, physics, German, and government and politics."

    What about Maths, English Language and other subjects? Or are these subjects not important?

    In the quote above, we see a few carefully selected comments which aren't representative of exams as a whole. What a surprise. :rolleyes: Try again.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not a scapegoat. You're a tit.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,255

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year

University open days

  1. Sheffield Hallam University
    City Campus Undergraduate
    Tue, 21 Aug '18
  2. Bournemouth University
    Clearing Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 22 Aug '18
  3. University of Buckingham
    Postgraduate Open Evening Postgraduate
    Thu, 23 Aug '18
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Study tools

Rosette

Essay expert

Learn to write like a pro with our ultimate essay guide.

Thinking about uni already?

Thinking about uni already?

See where you can apply with our uni match tool

Student chat

Ask a question

Chat to other GCSE students and get your study questions answered.

Creating

Make study resources

Create all the resources you need to get the grades.

Planner

Create your own Study Plan

Organise all your homework and exams so you never miss another deadline.

Resources by subject

From flashcards to mind maps; there's everything you need for all of your GCSE subjects.

Papers

Find past papers

100s of GCSE past papers for all your subjects at your fingertips.

Help out other students

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.