“To say or to do? I think that’s the question at hand.”
~ Hippo86, Comment 25
the sordid process of nation creation and occupation
In mad raving? I take the first-year students to task on this very point.
most of them reiterated (as noted by junior likeboldcolors, Comment 17) the WHAT or WHY of the assignment rather than experimenting with the HOW. I believe that they understand what comes next in a real conversation (instead of this artificial one in the educational frame of simply answering the teacher’s obvious (?) and boring (?) question), but the actual shift from accustomed form (give the teacher what she wants) to active engagement (independent, individual thought about the content, in this case, the internationally recognized national independence of Hawai’i) has not yet occurred.
Likewise, most of the juniors responded to the assignment with some assumption (apparently) of writing whatever they wanted. Well – yes and no. There were three specific elements, the successful completion of which required a certain labor of reading, thoughtfulness, and construction of a coherent response. Most comments follow a similar theme (without naming that they are doing so, leaving me to wonder about their level of conscious attention). Only one student provided the requested “map” of the conversation among the (approximately) thirty-five participants in the conversation. About half the juniors “added” something, although the relevance of the addition is questionable: mere opinion? Random firing of neurons in a thought that felt smart? What are the relevant criteria? kmb04 appreciates learning although is convinced none of our course activities have anything to do with writing (Comment 27).
These are tricky matters.
elr6 dispenses with the formal task completely and addresses redbeardthewriter (Comment 10) directly:
I like how you have distilled conversations, rhetoric, and ideas. I think you’re right on the money when it comes to “ideas […] do not [end]”. I also appreciate the distinction between old ideas and new ideas. My own thoughts on this subject have turned toward a more fluid process of idea generation and evolution. It’s not always about new ideas overcoming old ideas in revolution. Sometimes (if not always), progressive ideas are just products of old ideas. I suppose we agree that it is the conflict between ideas that allows for a “new idea” to be created. Cause and effect is very relevant here. We would never get anything done if we all agreed. But we really don’t need to worry about that ever happening, eh? (Comment 26)
Now, I have to take elr6 to task because he has “done” (instead of “said”) so well (!) that the conversation is practically private. Who else can enter? Any of us can – I hope some of you will! – but joining has been made difficult by the lack of explanation, absence of context, and void of application of the theoretical to the practical. There is a subject at hand! At least two: nation creation/occupation, and writing effectively.
Relevance: The context is never absent: are you “in” and aware of it, writing “to” (within or against) its boundaries?
Saying as doing: I am not going to pounce on Hippo’s classic error too hard: language is action, speech or writing no less a force than the crass and brutal forms of murder or setting oneself on fire. The distinction is in effect, and the effects are determined more by those who listen (or ignore) than those who say. Want evidence?
I found the intertwining of all these quotes comforting to see. As volatile as Hawaiin Occupation/independence be, the topic can without a doubt lead to some hot discussion as well as debate. Who really occupied who? Who’s at fault? Who the hell cares? It was very intriguing to see how all these opinions/statements can blend into one conversation and make it out alive. It’s a shame so many politcal debates about US occupation don’t end up the same way (Rocketsredflair, Comment 23).
Meanwhile, some comments function as teasers or incomplete tangents. likeboldcolors mentioned “a penetrating effect on our classes” of “research presented in the film [The Larsen Case]” (Comment 17) but did not elaborate… I am left wondering, with my mind grasping to make connections. Is this related to the “it” in anon136’s statement: “It also says something about the power of information and the power of information leading to change” (Comment 18). What is the “something” that is said? What is the distinction between “power of information” and “power of information leading to change”? I very much want to know. 🙂 Can connections be drawn – made! – among these notions (penetration, effect, power, information, change) and the comfort of synthesis? Can connections be made with redbeardthewriter and elr6’s conversation about old and new ideas, cause/effect, fluidity, conflict, progress?
Finally, ciaobella says “we will never escape Babel!!” (Comment 20). Why not? 🙂
For some reason, this post along with shininginthewind’s resonse of, “…she [Steph] shows the conversation between her two classes on the same topic. She brings together two groups of people who have never met and show how people have learned from each other,” remind me of Babel.
Well well well. How so? 🙂
A Place in Space 
Tuesday November 27, 2007 at 5:54 pm
This post ends with a question. Everything we have discussed in class usually ends with a question, a continuation of thought and process to come up with more. This eventually, hopefully leading up to us adding something new to the conversation. My addition to this conversation has to do with the fact that absolutely everything we do in life is relevant. I find myself with a headache after every class we have with Steph- yet today I realized that things are definitely relevant and will be for the rest of our lives. For the first time I felt a personal connection to something she was saying about her trip to the West Bank. I think it was the first time she introduced a personal story into the mix of our class discussion and it made me think about taking action in my own life- when am I eventually going to take complete charge and be independent? I think we all feel it now, even when we are in our 20’s yet we feel like we need to enjoy these years and not worry about “older” things. Rather, we put it in the back of our mind’s and bring it up when we turn an age that we think will be the “turning point.” Anyway, headache or not- things are connected and this is important because connections help make us feel comfortable, safe, and like we are not alone in the world. People learn from each other because of this connections as well. Rather than having one professor tell us what he or she thinks of the world- we get our peers telling us different things and helping us come up with our own addition to a conversation whether it be about Babel in relation to the Wiki or this course or the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict or gay marriage, or gun control, or the use of technology in the classroom, etc etc etc. We all have something to add to the conversation- we just have to do it!
Wednesday November 28, 2007 at 4:31 pm
To analyze the overall efficacy of this conversation, we must address the how- the content and the function- of the text. I think maybe it is possible that Steph’s observation of elr6 and redbeardthewriter’s conversation could be applied to our overall conversation on the “the sordid process of nation creation and occupation.” Steph states: “joining [the conversation] has been made difficult by the lack of explanation, absence of context, and void of application of the theoretical to the practical.” I feel that as a class we’re struggling with the how of this conversation. How do we use the content available (Larson Case DVD and subsequent conversation of the DVD and our individual reactions) to fulfill some, rather vague, function? I think a certain element of context is missing in the formation of a conversation. This lack of context probably comes back to our expecting Steph (the teacher) to provide some context or guidance that we (students) are unable (or maybe unwilling? Or unaware of the expectation of us to…) to create on our own. Questions, questions, questions abound, but I guess the context was simpler than I thought, just to talk with each other, ask questions, do the process (ask what we’re supposed to do, maybe in conversing with each other, establish the context) rather than bs around some abstract notion of the topic. Part of me feels like this conversation is sometimes too abstract, but looking at the Larsen case, it is very concrete. Facts are given to support their case. They have international recognition of the sovereignty of Hawaii, what comes next?
Another compelling question Steph asked in her post is: “What is the distinction between ‘power of information’ and ‘power of information leading to change?’” I guess the distinction rests in how the information is applied. What function, or end goal, is set for the information? Is the information just acquired, or is it harnessed into an understanding of old ideas that might evolve (through conflict or an evaluation of cause and effect?) into new ideas?
Wednesday November 28, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Anyone can make connections about just practically anything. Take a look at some anti-war rallies across the country and you’ll for yourself. Though the main issue might be to end the war on or occupation of Iraq, numerous other causes are dispalyed, some of which less relevant than others. Some of the causes I’ve seen at rallies include Korean unity, Palestine, and the rise of different political movements (i.e., Communism/Socialism.) Reading this post, one of the main ideas I’ve gathered is that connections between people or things can be a good thing, as exemplified by how Steph’s different classes watch the same movie, Babel. After all, two heads are better than one and one of the main processes of Communication is the back and forth process of listening. Other connections, which yes can be technically connected to a slight extent, only demean a cause since they really don’t have any relation whatsoever other than just being yes, another cause or issue. In order to establish a “good” connection, one should first look at the context of a situation and analyze whether the thing that’s trying to be connected has any relevance to it.
Wednesday November 28, 2007 at 8:22 pm
The whole point of Steph’s conversation is to bring together our own quotes to better our understanding of her goals in the class. Piecing together the her argument brings us through a number of quotes from our own blogs. This strategy helps us to connect to her point because we see our own thought processes (that had been disorganized throughout wordpress to begin with) organized through her response. And overall, that was the point she was trying to make in class, if we can just take an idea that we want to get across to a certain group, we gather evidence to help support our point and write to that audience. Now for the point that she was trying to make in the conversation she constructed, it is that we all have something to add. I think anon136 said it best in the post above, “Everything we have discussed in class usually ends with a question, a continuation of thought and process to come up with more.”
Wednesday November 28, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Although I thought this blogspot was confusing and the test that we had in class was even more confusing, this is what I can come up with. To think critically we have to take steps before we can rightly answer a piece of work that we are selves do not understand. The context does not need to be agreed with but needs to be understood to comment. As our class continued in a rant of Intellectual boudaries, what I personally understood from the lecture was that who am I talking to as a student, from my text and usage of the internet. What is my audience taking home from my message. The point of strangers reading my work is for them to understand the point of clarity I am trying to describe, what will my readers reactions be? I think rocketsred flair agrees when they say “In order to establish a “good” connection, one should first look at the context of a situation and analyze whether the thing that’s trying to be connected has any relevance to it”. The connection we must make is individual and not everyone will agree with the connection that you are making.
Wednesday November 28, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I was also confused about this blog, especially about what the intellectual boundaries are that I am working with in. Through the discussion in class I began to understand that the boundaries are within the dialog that is connected and that can be continued; the writer and audience make the boundaries. I also feel that the blog has very limited boundaries, its a free space where students feel they can express themselves and be creative without writing what their “supposed” to be writing,as long as the ideas are within the context, the boundaries are unlimited. However, we are supposed to answer questions and look at ideas in a new way from how we have been taught to learn and answer questions. “the actual shift from accustomed form to active engagement” having our own independent thoughts.
Wednesday November 28, 2007 at 11:28 pm
I think that being involved in a conversationis the way new ideas are formed and discovered, therefore it is important to be fully aware of the conversation and what is happeningin the conversation and to the conversation. The quote “most of them reiterated…rather than experimenting with the how” is a really important quote because it shows that students are no following what id happening. Theyare not understanding the conversation and/ or ideas. This keeps the conversation from growing. hen it was written “the successful completion of which required a certain labor of reading, thoughtfulness, and construction of coherent response” is also important as it describes the way of adding to a conversation. If this process isn’t followed new ideas cannot be added, and new ideas will no longer flourish.
Wednesday November 28, 2007 at 11:47 pm
After having yet another confusing debate in class, I have realized that Steph simply wants us to apply critical thinking in our posts, and more importantly, to ask questions, which will ultimately “add to the conversation” that’s started. This has been an ongoing theme in our class, “adding to the conversation.” What makes a conversation? Steph is reaching out to us by addressing the fact that we, the juniors, “understand what comes next in a real conversation … but the actual shift from accustomed form … to active engagement ….has not yet occurred.” Of course, a conversation can easily occur between people, but what is important about it? [In regards to blogposts] does what we say when responding pertain to the context, or are we just rambling? I realized that I have to read each blogpost 2 or 3 times to get a better understanding of what’s being said. Likeboldcolors believes “a certain element of context is missing in the formation of a conversation. This lack of context probably comes back to our expecting Steph (the teacher) to provide some context or guidance that we (students) are unable (or maybe unwilling? Or unaware of the expectation of us to…) to create on our own.” Context is key.
As I wrote on my quiz in class, Steph uses the example of elr6 addressing redbeardthewriter. Elr6 agrees with readbeardthewriter and gives feedback/comments to him. Is this what Steph is trying to tell us? Engage further in conversations to create new ones? Quotes and connections are what tie our blog posts together. This could, perhaps, be a boundary that we are experiencing. Our dialogue is connected, both in the classroom and in blog posts. We, as writers, must establish an audience which creates a boundary within itself.
Thursday November 29, 2007 at 4:24 am
This is all about working together. In past class situations, had I been asked to do something like this, there would have been a blog post, and then maybe 3 or 4 questions to answer after the post. I would have written what I know the teacher wanted to hear and not even looked at how other students responded. This is a lot different. We’re all supposed to be working together here, and obviously it isn’t happening as much as we’d all like. I can confess that I haven’t always been doing my part, but I guess it’s hard sometimes. Opening up the dialog between classmates could add a whole new dynamic to all of our writing. We’ve done peer review in the past, but this really is where the ultimate peer review should be done (even including steph in reviewing). As it’s getting late in the semester, will we ever get to use this to its full potential? Will we all just delete our accounts after the semester is over? This is a good way to bring a class together and a good way to think about every kind of topic.
Rocketsredflair hit it right on the nose when saying, “After all, two heads are better than one and one of the main processes of Communication is the back and forth process of listening” (Comment 3). The points being made just get better and better. I’m learning more and more from continuously going to class and reading the blogs. Because, as Ciaobelllla says, “Our dialogue is connected, both in the classroom and in blog posts” (Comment 8). This is what we’re realizing, and by utilizing this, we will become better writers.
Thursday November 29, 2007 at 9:44 am
I think the purpose of this conversation was to get us thinking about the effectiveness of our responses. Honestly, there are many things I do before i respond to a post, but most often, the important part to getting my thoughts together and being able to understand what steph is looking for is the students prior responses and that is because of one reason: that i dont ususally understand what steph is looking for.
In this post, steph uses phrases such as “apparently writing whatever they wanted”, and i think the reason for that is that we dont completely understand what you are asking us to write about. Steph asked for us to write a “map of the conversation”…. raise ur hand if you have any idea what this means? no one? okay… thats the first problem. if maybe we were given a definition of a map of conversation or even an example of what that might look like, that would help. Otherwise, were just writing what were thinking, which i always thought was a good thing, but apparently, “they added something but the relevance of the addition is questionable”… isn’t it always. The relevance of everything is questionable, and what is relevant to some people could be irrelevant to others, and although steph sees that we are writing opinions, this is how relevance comes into play, in an opinion, everything is relative to the person writing.
The purpose of this post was to get the students to closer examine the posts and responses they are writing in response to whatever steph requests we write about, i think the problem here is that we are all writing blind because the terms we are asked to write on are so broad, we dont know where to begin, what to talk about, or even what it means. Theres a disconnect somewhere and its causing us problems when we sit down to post.
Thursday November 29, 2007 at 11:30 am
Ciaobella’s quote “we will never escape Babel!!” I think is very telling, or at least coincidentally fitting given what Babel represents in both the film and the biblical story. The story of the tower of Babel and the film both focus on language and communication difficulties. I think the idea that “we will never escape Babel” is funny considering the similar problems we’ve had in this class.
I think that a lot of what Steph is talking about in this post has to deal directly with another miscommunication or a direction misunderstood. I think a lot of people “commented” by simply making a statement. When Steph writes “Likewise, most of the juniors responded to the assignment with some assumption (apparently) of writing whatever they wanted.” this is what she’s talking about. Really what I think we are all expected to do is to think more critically about the topic and comment in a conversational style.
Thursday November 29, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Since the beginning of September when we first started watching Babel we all realized that the connections between people, cultures, and life itself is vital in communication; more specifically writing as communication. Perhaps the most important relationships are between the content, context, media, and function of a conversation. Steph writes about relevance which needs to be talked about in a writing class. Without relevance to the context or content (which in this class is broader and broader every time we look up) the conversation is not going to make sense and is not going to be effective. The key to this post in relation to our class is the questions. A conversation is all about asking and answering questions. WHAT? WHY? HOW? And Hippo86’s question, “To say or to do?” Each answer can be valuable if relevant to the content and context of the conversation.
Thursday November 29, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Much like many of the other students in our class, I was confused not only by the Steph’s entry above, but also by the discussion taking place in class. I have come away from all of this with the feeling that Steph is expecting more in our replies than we have been providing her. The title “hints of connected dialogue” leads me to believe that though there are hints of connections between our replies, Steph expects us to develop better connections as writers. “About half the juniors ‘added’ something, although the relevance of the addition is questionable: mere opinion? Random firing of neurons in a thought that felt smart?” I find the previous quote from “hints of a connect dialogue” bothersome. Maybe it’s Steph’s way of expressing frustration with our replies and the connections we may or may not be making, but I’m not sure going so far as implying that our responses are “Random firing or neurons” or questioning the relevance of what we wrote is an appropriate response. We are all educated people; I do not think any of us would be writing something we randomly conjured up or something totally irrelevant. Maybe the problem with our responses is that we have yet to grasp the ideas that Steph is introducing us to? This is after all the first time in my career as a student that I have been expected to think and write in the way Steph expects.
With that said, I do agree with Steph. For myself personally, I walked away from class on Tuesday thinking of how I could improve the quality of my responses. I think what Steph wanted us to take away from class and this post was the idea that before we start writing our responses, we should take time to analyze what has been written and ask questions. There has to be a reason the article we are responding to was written and a way we are connected to it.
Thursday November 29, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I am joining elr6 in his idea that “progressive ideas are just products of old ideas” This is true and it is why I think (as ciaobella says) Steph “will never escape Bable”. As we go on in this course and learn new things she is forcing us to return to something old (like our first thoughts on Bable) and continuously reconstruct our ideas and thoughts on this. That isn’t just learning but it is applying what we have learned. When reviewing this blog and responding to it I am working within the intellectual boundaries of the educational context I am looking at this as a student trying to understand and make sense of it all. I am working within the ritual model because I am looking for a response for others and I am responding to Steph. Ultimately I am attempting to evolve this and other conversations about Hawaii and Palestine.
Thursday November 29, 2007 at 1:00 pm
With two weeks to go in the semester, I am finally starting to see how everything in this class is tying together. We shouldn’t be doing assignments based on what we think Steph wants to see, but based on what she wants us to learn. I agree with ciaobella’s comment “We will never escape Babel!” It’s true that Babel has continued to pop up in various classes throughout the semester, but it will also appear throughout our lives. It reminds me a little of the game “Six degrees of Kevin Bacon” where you have to find where your life intertwines and connects with other’s lives until you find the eventual link between yourself and Kevin Bacon. This type of rhetoric will always be present, we will always need to find the links between things to completely understand how they work and how the “dialogue” is supposed to go.
I am still never sure if I am responding to these posts the way I should be. Should I be writing down, as Steph says, “mere opinion”? I try to dig deeper to find what Steph wants us to find, but I’m not always sure if I’m getting it. Maybe I will someday even if it’s not by the end of the semester.
Thursday November 29, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Thanks to this class I now look at a piece of paper as a person I will potentially have a conversation with, and this image makes me care about what I write. We have many different outlets or mediums to let our voices be heard. In COMM375 we conduct most or our class discussions on the web in a blog. A class discussion, conducted on the internet, is still very new to me, especially in a class setting.
All throughout high school, I haven’t really cared about what I’ve written because I would only write a paper for a grade. Just give the teacher what she wants and not really add to the conversation. Steph has not told us what she wants from us and our work, she leaves many assignments open to interpretation and I like this a lot. In the beginning of this course, I was very confused and didn’t know how to approach many writing assignments but being in COMM375 has altered my perspective in writing. I am not the best writer but I do have something to say and my own point of view about the world. I have come to realize that there is a much bigger world out there and our writing should mean something, whether it is for change or to inform. After this class I believe I am an active citizen. My writing should not just be a conversation between student-teacher because what I say should matter and affect everyone because everyone in this world affects me, even in some ways I am unaware of.
It is funny that I chose to call my blog Confusioniseasy because it is easy to get out of a conversation when you are confused. To add to a conversation, one must be knowledgeable about the topic or else whatever they will say will not be complete or thoughtful. Most people if confused will not add to the conversation, the HOW, they will only give the WHAT and WHY of the assignment. If you state your confusion, you can only invite others to possibly clarify your questions so you can continue in the conversation or raise another question to have others think about. Conversations never really end because there are always new questions to be answered because no one person thinks the same.
Monday December 3, 2007 at 3:16 am
Why aren’t people talking???!!! Damnit, sh*t, fu*k! One of the possibilities for the lack of conversation is, “Theyare not understanding the conversation and/ or ideas. This keeps the conversation from growing.” (Shininginthewind) Apparently oddity33 can relate to what shininginthewind is saying, “…i think the problem here is that we are all writing blind because the terms we are asked to write on are so broad, we dont know where to begin, what to talk about, or even what it means.” An individual is unable to continue a specific conversation if they are unaware of the topic at hand. We begin to write in a “blind” state which results in what Steph describes as “Random firing of neurons in a thought that felt smart?” In most cases, well in the case of the juniors, if random comments were posted they were posted by a deadline for a grade (to satisfy Steph) and not so much to further the conversation. An ideal response would be one that was, “the successful completion of which required a certain labor of reading, thoughtfulness, and construction of coherent response” (Steph?). In other words, what is being asked of us and what is preferred by Steph is evidence of critical thinking in our blogs. In order to convey a level of critical thinking “we have to take steps before we can rightly answer a piece of work that we are selves do not understand.” (Carmella7) These steps involve becoming familiar with that “piece of work” by either becoming involved through participation or through research. In answering any question, or adding to the conversation “context is key.” (Ciaobelllla) If comments are being made without any relevance to the context, they simply become a waste of the reader’s attention. It is context that ties the ideas, critiques, arguments, and so on of different people; similar in effect to the gun in Babel. “Quotes and connections are what tie our blog posts together. This could, perhaps, be a boundary that we are experiencing. Our dialogue is connected, both in the classroom and in blog posts.” (Ciaobelllla) In connecting these quotes, we acknowledge the differences and similarities in what is being said, and from that point on are hopefully able to implement our own ideas or questions to continue the conversation as long as they’re “relevant to the content and context of the conversation [deeming them valuable].”(aisforastronaut) Anon136 sums this up by stating that “everything we have discussed in class usually ends with a question, a continuation of thought and process to come up with more. This eventually, hopefully leading up to us adding something new to the conversation.” (anon136) Another reason that some students are unable to add to the conversation is because the topic seems abstract. “Part of me feels like this conversation is sometimes too abstract, but looking at the Larsen case, it is very concrete.” (likeboldcolors) Personally, I feel that when something is too abstract, you begin to rant at one point or another, engaging in emotion and opinion. This is a problem in my research paper because the topic includes love. In order for me to add to the particular conversation of my topic, I have to add to the conversation with concrete ideas as opposed to expressing my emotions of hate and disgust. The Larsen case conveys this “concrete” state that likeboldcolors is referring to because Hawaii has gathered facts and evidence and in doing so has received recognition as a kingdom and not a state of the United States. One thing that Steph wanted us to leave with last class was the relevance and connection something occurring across the world has with our own lives here in the United States. Keithjagger touched upon Steph’s idea (whether he intended to or not) by stating, “There has to be a reason the article we are responding to was written and a way we are connected to it.” Everything serves a purpose. The suffering of one nation ultimately leads to the luxury of another. I guess I’ll add to the conversation by including what I know about globalization. Globalization is supposed to assist “third world” countries economically through various attempts and loans allowing these “underdeveloped” countries to gain footing on this ‘global ladder’. On the contrary, these countries are placed in worse conditions and in further debt, hindering them from climbing further up the ladder. In short, the only ones benefiting from globalization are the dominant countries; dominant countries such as the United States. While we complain about driving a $10,000 dollar car as opposed to a $40,000 vehicle, or while we complain because our closets are not the same size as our bedrooms, children in other parts of the world are living on a slice of bread, if that. Countless people are dying in the Middle East and living in fear. We are connected in more ways than just oil, yet the only way to realize this, is through these active conversations. Otherwise we would continue to purchase Gucci because God knows 90% of us are too comfortable with our way of live to have the courage to travel to these parts of the worlds, some which are suffering at our expense. The true purpose of Steph’s teaching will be revealed following our completion of this course. “As it’s getting late in the semester, will we ever get to use this to its full potential? Will we all just delete our accounts after the semester is over?” (metalcircus) For those of us who continue to engage in thoughtful, thorough conversations in which ideas are exchanged and implemented (or summarized and analyzed), it will show we have come to terms with what communication is all about. A couple people, who later turned into a multitude of people, were discussing the validity of a kingdom that was referred to as a state. These people continued their conversation, adding new ideas about treaties and economic stability if given their independence and now they are recognized by the World Court as a Kingdom. Changes occur as a result of communication.
Thursday December 6, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Okay well I’m gonna be the asshole out on the limb here and say that despite the fact that you all seem like u spent a lot of time comming up with creative names that somehow shine light upon ur importance in the world therefore possibly convincing me that any of you could give a shit abouyt what you are writing about Im just not buying it. I think that the reason none of us are aiming at answering the how instead of the what and why is because about 90% of us are here to do the bare minimum. I’ll even admit to not fully erading all of your blogs because I really dont care waht they all have to say. Whether I find a way to stop the Hawaiian occupation or not is not one of the things I worry about and therefore dont care about, and I bet I could find a dozen otehr kids in my classroom who feel the same way. So unless your writing so dramatically just to get a good grade stop being such a pain in the ass and do it urself or find people who are serious about the matter instead of badgering college students trying to sqeeze by in a writing class.
Thursday December 6, 2007 at 5:32 pm
And profanity wont get you understood but its goofey and I like it.