Clarification and Conclusion

(4/10/2008 06:52:00 PM)

Over the past 24 hours, this blog's tagboard and 6K's blog have been filled with comments regarding my previous post. Some of these posts are positive, while others have in effect been vitriolic in nature, or simply inflammatory.
You might say I'm exaggerating, but what should one make of things like these?

"PS. I sense a war brewing..."

"thank you sia... I expect a war tomorrow..."

"retard: i love the way you find avenues to make up for your inadequacies.
go you!"

(I note that the above tag seems to only feed fuel to the fire by reinforcing the prior impression of 6K as a class filled with arrogant intellectuals. I am not saying that I agree with this statement though, I do know that 6K is not like this. I am just saying that this feeds stereotypes. I sincerely apologise if the poster above is subsequently not found to be from 6K.)

To be sure, these are only the minority. But I would like to note that the more we talk about war, the closer we come to the brink of war.

Which is entirely against the purpose of the previous post. Mainly, it was my hope that we could start a much needed broad ranging discussion between the two classes. Thus I intended my previous post to be a impetus for dialogue.

As such, care was taken to minimize bias as far as possible until it was as objective as possible, through the use of a foreword, a search for as much facts as possible and leaving the reader to form his/her own conclusion. Indeed, this goal seemed to be achieved with a poster on 6K remarking that the bias was "insignificant".

*
As an aside, no talk of war had ever surfaced in 6H until the invasion of foreign tags on the tagboard and the recent posts. This can be seen by my previous post offering "Solutions" instead of "Countermeasures". Ultimately, we still desire for friendly class relations.

As such, I must note that this concept of war was first put up by 6K, not 6H. Presumably this was due to inflamed passions leading to major misunderstanding.
*

I understand the topic treads on too many toes, and thus my intent has long been drowned out by the sound and fury surrounding the topic. Thus, I shall thus utilize this opportunity to clear up any misconceptions and errors that I have made.

Firstly, I would like to apologise for the naming error. It was solely a careless oversight and should have been cleared up. No insult was intended.

Also, the matter of false quotes. While I admit that the quotes may not have been accurate due to the tendency of memories to not be 100% crystal clear, I would like to note that a lot of the presenters' words and explanations involved Physics Olympiad, which is the point I would like to focus on. The quotes were only meant to be illustrative of this point. In hindsight, quotes should not have been inserted, and the point should have been allowed to stand by itself so as to avoid misunderstanding.

Regarding the statement that "Easy Right" was taken out of context, I would like to comment that while I do agree that integration is simple and could be easily done, the prior point regarding the separation of variables was totally out of our world and thus non-comprehensible. Thus in our perspective, the abovementioned quote seemed to encapsulate all that had been said, leading to false impressions and differing interpretations. This is a major source of the controversy surrounding the post, and I hope this resolves it.

While I do admit that the physical significance of the equation was included (I do know that it was presented), my point was that the focus of the powerpoint was heavily skewed to the mathematical side of the equation, not that the physical significance was absent. Thus while the physical significance was indeed present, the focus was not on it. Thus incorporation does not equate to focus on topic.

If my aside regarding Schrodinger being perceived as an jealous man in the video offended anyone, I would like to note that similarly was not my focus. Neither did I allege that the producer had intentionally misrepresented his character. I do accept that some degree of artistic license should be given, but at the point of writing, I was too emotional to give this license. For that I'm sorry, and deeply apologise for any distress caused.

Also, about the statement that the conduct of the presenters was not deliberate, that was why I specifically mentioned that the condescending tone of the presenters was most likely perceived. I did not state that the presenters were deliberately rude.

I hope that this is the start of a more substantive dialogue between the two classes. Indeed, it is somewhat disturbing that a single issue can already trigger cries of war from extremists (I dont really know a better term, so do please understand.) of both classes. As it is, most of us are not warmongers looking for an excuse for competition. We all know that war leads to suffering.

Just like the Cuban Missile Crisis, both parties need to compromise. And the way to reach a compromise is for more discussion. If we do not, serious consequences will follow.

I just caught a glimpse of 6K's most recent post. I do agree that in hindsight, a better vehicle for communication should have been chosen and thus I should shoulder some responsibility. But personally, I have doubts about the effectiveness of a one sided call for dialogue. Nevertheless, since we are here, let us make the best of this opportunity to improve relations.

Let us thus close this issue at this point and understand that ultimately everyone here did not intend to insult anyone else, rather a miscommunication snowballed due to inflamed passions leading to where we are today. Once again, I hope that the two classes will at least reach some modus vivendi, where though we may not share the same values and passions, we can still live amicably with one another. Or even better, we will reach a common understanding, where some give and take regarding presentations is concerned.