Re: 請問我該說些什麼??

[funnyass (Lt. U.)]

  A good movie wouldn't suck based on some critiques on the internet.
  By the same token,
  if a peer review panel has well taken my stands and allowed articles
  full of my viewpoints to be published on an academic journal...
  if I have established my credibility in the realm of my specialty with
  my philosophy...
  then why should I feel my point was meaningless only because some folks
  on the internet said they don't understand or they disagree?
  If you think my posting is mucking your board, I'll be more than happy
  to quit. No one pays me anyways.
  This would be my last post on your board.
  I might not even come back to read articles anymore. enough?
  Like some people suggested, I might have come to the wrong place.
  The only thing I don't understand is since my posts were so pointless to
  you all, why didn't the BM delete them all? including this one of course.

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) 
◆ From: 172.163.67.48
推 kubrick:我認為兩邊都沒有錯，只是要說明「用途」；
→ kubrick:BBC NEWS用的語彙跟SNL SHOW本來就不一樣，
→ kubrick:認為別人會誤解或是別人會覺得幽默都算是一種
→ kubrick:「鏡中自我」，是建構在主觀的認知之下的。
→ kubrick:我覺得若是告訴原PO這幾種說法的「用途」，
→ kubrick:或許原PO會學到更多。也或許會引起這麼大的
→ kubrick:爭議是因為有許多人將這個版當成Textbook，
→ kubrick:是用很正統的模式去解讀吧！（還是這又是一種
→ kubrick:主觀認知？！＠＠）一點小意見^^
推 kubrick:我這樣算是唯心論還是唯物論咧~~XD
推 nownow:It doesn't matter. Never mind.
推 longing:Never mind. It doesn't matter.