Robert Hansen (RH) posted (Sep 9, 2013 10:17 PM, http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9256063). GSC's remarks follow: > > On Sep 9, 2013, at 11:43 AM, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > If they were PUSHED a LOT and ENCOURAGED only a > LITTLE, what was the relationship between the PUSHING > and the ENCOURAGEMENT? How much did the PUSHING > contribute to their high performance and how much did > the ENCOURAGEMENT contribute? > > > Overall, 50/50. People get discouraged for all sorts > of reasons, that is when you go to plan B, the stick. > Sorry the real world troubles you so much, but a lot > of parents will not let the real world get in their > way of raising their children. They work with it. > > Given the state of your country, and the world for > that matter, why do you hold on to this belief that > that people can achieve their best on encouragement > alone? Or, is it your belief that if they would use > your OPMS system then they could attain their best on > encouragement alone? Since encouragement alone has > been insufficient to get people to use OPMS, should > we use the stick?:) > > Bob Hansen > I strongly suggest you might learn to understand what you have read before you comment on it. That is the wiser way.
This is not really impossible for most people, (though it might be difficult for you - as you have been demonstrating through all our interactions thus far, in particular your lies that "OPMS is just list-taking and nothing else!" A glance at the attachments to my post heading the thread "Democracy: how to achieve it?" - dt. Dec 9, 2012 7:26 PM, http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2419536 may be sufficient to demonstrate the truth of the matter for most people. No guarantees for RH. I am sorry the real world troubles you so much that you feel thus impelled to lie in your arguments).
(The "state of my country" is not under discussion at this point - though we could debate that too, if needed. My 'opinion' is that it is only slightly more screwed up than is yours - with a great deal more legitimate excuse for being screwed up than yours has. That's a 'claim', if you wish - and it can be readily demonstrated [to those who do not lie in their arguments]. For those who systematically lie in their arguments, convincing argument may be impossible - even if it were Jesus Christ trying to do the convincing).
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING! Not GOADING!")