Writing Feedback / War -- victor or no victor? [45]

How would I go about publishing it?

Who's going to take a 17 year old seriously?

It strikes me as profoundly ironic that I'm accused of being an idealist, writing the essay, but I'd probably be called pragmatic/cynical if I dismiss the notion of having it published as fantastical.

Writing Feedback / War -- victor or no victor? [45]

That's very telling of your ability to recognize and correct errors.

It goes without saying, I appreciate it.

For those of you interested in seeing this essay go further, you'll just have to find more flaws for the time being, because I cannot devote any time to it as I'm extremely busy right now.

I do expect that I should resume the process of refining this essay, after I knock out some of the things which are occupying my time unduly.

Writing Feedback / Machine Learning versus Learning by Humans [51]

Wow, that is superb advice, Simone!!

Writing Feedback / War -- victor or no victor? [45]

Thanks, I appreciate you guys understanding.

Writing Feedback / War -- victor or no victor? [45]

Sean, I was hoping that I have made clear by now, not to bring extraneous, erroneous, self-contradicting views to threads which don't need it.

I don't know..

I've tried telling you in so many ways, you are not helping me improve my essay; the debate, forget my opinion on it, is unrelated.

So continue elsewhere, because the only reason I posted this thread was to get feedback about my essay -- can you understand that?

Nicholas, I would ask the same of you.

Writing Feedback / War -- victor or no victor? [45]

Here goes my post regarding something which I view as unrelated to my initial post (yes, my comment on "shecat's" post was to be taken as a hint not to confuse obfuscation and propagandism with "constructive criticism").

I'm going to analyze your latest post, as time permits, with all the objectivity I can muster.

"Why does the search for truth matter to anyone? In this case, though, I have several reasons for defending this particular theory:"

I thought your question might be rhetorical at first, but now if I had to choose, at least based on the context, I would say you're serious/trying to portray yourself as serious.

What is the truth? Obviously we disagree. Intelligent men have lived and died before us and they could not agree unanimously on one.

Since you tend to view things with a fair amount of logic, I think you'd understand that as you are an adamant supporter of the theory of evolution, there is either no truth, or we cannot comprehend the truth (for you, that is -- in your frame of mind).

If there IS a universal truth for YOU, tell me what it is.

So, unless there is some hidden agenda, I think you've failed to see that you can't talk about "the truth" when there isn't any such thing (in your view at least). Again, we can talk about something which doesn't exist; but I wouldn't say you could formulate a truth ("the truth") out of nothing, or by talking about nothing. (Say your truth, or stop here; if you think we "cannot know any truth", move forward)

If you are willing to concede that your view is one that we cannot know any truth, I think this might possibly have a genuine tint and we could proceed on to the next segment.

"..reasons for defending"

So we can't know any truths, but you have reasons?

Reasons are usually grounded in a rationale, which is ground further in a universal truth. If you've made it this far, you're

a) curious
b) skimming
c) neglectfully absentminded and not wholly sure of your beliefs; otherwise you can't have materially valid "reasons."
d) made a mistake; shoo, there's nothing to see here.

Tyler, feel free to join in; I understand you are a practitioner of logic.

If you can pry yourself away from doing whatever it is that expert logicians do in their spare time, you're welcome to don a shirt with vertically directed black and white stripes adjacent each other, and see that this is done right

Everyone else, the party is here; have a bucket of lemonade and make yourself comfortable.

Just make sure you don't repeat yourself, and we make progress in our quest to reach our personal goals, whatever they are for each of us uniquely; I imagine no human can read another human's mind, nor can we see what's in another person's heart -- some of us cannot decipher what is in our hearts, even as we say "I", presumably to speak about "ourselves."

Of course it could be that each of us has that ability (to know our motivations intrinsically), but where we find ourselves lacking, is in the ability to accurately depict it (at least however we know it) in interaction with others, surfeit of terror with what we see.

This is what sociologists are describing when they refer to the slang word "fronting", a word seen most often in the vernacular of inner city youths.

I bet if they don't already know, they'd be surprised to find that "fronting" knows few boundaries.

urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fronting

That's a dictionary straight off the streets; the words related to any "x" word you type in this dictionary (that also exists in it) invariably ends up being a word referencing or shortly leading to a word that references the female reproductive system, intoxicants, a state of intoxication, or in this case, [insert euphemistic word/phrase/explanation for "fronting"].

Sometimes words agreed as "crude" among the socioeconomically stratified majority, are best left intact to depict their nature upfront and outright.

Writing Feedback / "People of MTV generation have no patience. They want instant satisfaction." [84]

It's possible that people who come to this site don't know the way the site works, since the instructions aren't to be found anwyhwere.

Why not add it somewhere that if you want the best possible experience, show up with some work in hand already (or whatever rule the owners of this site deem appropriate)?

That way, there would be no ambiguity about which threads are worth replying to, and which are not.

If you have the rules posted somewhere easy to see, and in a way that's easy to read, I bet some people who would have originally posted with the instructions for their assignment and no more, will now make that first post with some workable material.

I don't know how you'd exactly measure this, but I'm pretty sure that you'd see a statistically significant decline in "lazy threads" lets call them, if you were clear about what is expected of a person submitting for review/help.

If you don't post those rules, and just "naturally" assume that a person is lazy or a slacker trying to get others to do his/her work, you are making a very speculative assumption.

Once you have the guidelines in plain view, you can rest a little easier in knowing that you at least gave it a shot.

Otherwise, I could be a person unfamiliar with English and taking a developmental English class; the teacher says we're going to work on "essays" and to "keep an eye out for the instructions" -- it's not making much sense to me, so I bang out "Essay help" in google and on the second page, 8th link down, I find this site.

I don't know much except that we are supposed to do something with essays, and these "instruction" words are especially important.

I type all that I know and I'm desperate for help, the internet being my last resort.

I hit "Post Reply" and I'm either redirected to google or given a half-hearted reply, which will soon degenerate into the product of a mentality that "why should we care -- this person is a slacker -- it shouldn't matter that I wipe my cleats with this joke of a first post, since this person is not genuine about contributing some effort."

In actuality you've spurned a really great person who is hopelessly lost when it comes to this foreign language "English", and how to write essays according to the rules that govern the same.

Writing Feedback / "People of MTV generation have no patience. They want instant satisfaction." [84]

I'm all for open discussion and intelligent conversation, in the appropriate time and place, but is that place in this thread?

Tangents can keep things interesting when they're sparse and spontaneous; however, when you try forcefully as a rule, to get off point, and the posts in the thread no longer bear any resemblance to the mother post which birthed them, it's not very fair to the person who has seen their request for advice/constructive criticism devolve into an inconsiderate, deviant slugfest of words.

Writing Feedback / War -- victor or no victor? [45]

You seem awfully invested in arguing the merits of evolution -- why does it matter so much to you?

I am secure enough in my beliefs that I wouldn't foist them on you -- in the end, the only person you will be accountable for, will be you.

I'm afraid that's the way it is.

You come into this world alone, you exit this world alone, and you will carry the burden of what you have done, alone.

Writing Feedback / War -- victor or no victor? [45]

"Oh dear. I really, really, really, don't want to get into a argument with Creationists."

You know, I'm not so certain that that's truly the case.

I've picked up on a general tendency of yours to include evolution or a facetious comment/view that likely steers the conversation in that direction [evolution].

But on a completely different note, I have to thank you before I forget; I was writing for an assignment of some importance and ALMOST used a mixed metaphor -- but instead, by remembering what you said, I ended up writing one that matched tit for tat, and [it] was much more powerful for it.

Abstracting from that example, I don't think I thank the participants of this website often enough; I've really learned A LOT from you, whether that was your primary intent, or not.

Another example would be Replacement Level Fertility (which I first heard here -- btw it's refererred to as just that (not RLF Rate), among people who are familiar with it); just a week or so ago, I had never heard the term. About a day or so ago I was involved in a problem that involved RLF, and I was all the more versatile for being a member here and seeing it already.

This is as good a time as any to say thank you -- thanks to all who make this site possible (in plain view, or behind the scenes), especially the Essay Forum contributors Kevin and Sean.

Writing Feedback / War -- victor or no victor? [45]

Wow, and to think that I was under the misapprehension that I had honed my essay to within a very narrow range...

I'm responding primarily to posts #3 and post #7; other than that, I don't have time nowadays to make marathon posts or argue to win, or even argue with an obscured view that my feelings should matter -- that there is anything I can gain or lose personally. But I think I already mentioned this some time back, when I submitted for review a paper, after a hiatus.

Gautama: If it's possible to settle differences amicably, which is almost always the case, then war doesn't much have a victor.

Note that I didn't even bother touching upon war and proposed justifications; I didn't bother AT ALL with the parameters of a just or unjust war, or the infinite number of reasons why someone might find themselves involved in one -- I just said that there is no victor.

That's why I view some of these replies as completely off base. Don't assume too much -- in fact, don't assume more than what is stated explicitly as the sole talking point.

Sean: Part 1 of your reply deals with the theory of evolution, which you are entitled to believe in; just keep in mind that some people, while they are willing to discuss it, as they might pink unicorns, don't view it as any more real [than pink unicorns].

Part 2 begins as a misinterpretation of my conclusion because as I've said already, but have been compelled to repeat, I didn't even touch on the reasons why someone might be involved in a war; it's unfair to hop 20 sidewalk cracks and reply to something I didn't say.

I may have flubbed the punctuation in the conclusion since I'm still learning the finer rules of English through practice, but after reading that Kevin understood it, I became disillusioned from my leaning that because it may have been incomprehensible to you at first, it might have also come across that way to my classmates, and to anyone else who bothered reading it.

Some of these replies presuppose by inference that I said or even talked about something which I didn't. Be careful not to get too far ahead of yourself.

Writing Feedback / War -- victor or no victor? [45]

I think "I think" is appropriate in certain instances, one of those being when you are involved in the content of an essay, and also in a pragmatic sense, at a point in your academic career where it's acceptable.

Separately, if I was going to omit "I think" I would add a semicolon after "questions" and also strike the "is" that you've marked in red ink, though that isn't the only way.

I wouldn't bet that Sean read the conclusion and my subjective definition of humanity's objective, as carefully as he did the line which he quoted me on, but then again, I wouldn't bet at all because I don't view gambling favorably; so now there is for sure, more than one conspicuous inference that one [another person] can draw from my words.

Writing Feedback / Machine Learning versus Learning by Humans [51]

I thought power was defined by its use.

Research Papers / Science fair research paper - how to start/goal of? [8]

Settle on a topic you're interested in that's science-related, and has adequate information accessible to you. Once you've done that, report back with your topic and the instructions for the assignment.

Writing Feedback / Persuasive essay (Lithium based batteries>Nickel based batteries) [33]

You give the impression that "either" you have to be a math fanatic, "or" you have to be a linguistics scholar.

Or you could be both or none...

I don't think I have a propensity to write in terms of quantifiable measurements for persuasive essays, though I consider myself quite adept at math.

You write very well relative to most people your age, so I don't buy the "I'd rather be doing integral calculus" notion at all.

I don't know if this holds true for you, but sometimes people will create labels or stigmatized depictions of a certain type, and sub-consciously you try to assimilate that by cohering to the popular notion -- even project it exaggeratedly.

I've done so myself on ocassion.

Why limit yourself in that sense, if that's what you're doing...?

If you're not, I gather it may be easier to write in extensive detail about things you know well because unfamiliarity disturbs you, and also because you want to demonstrate that you have this knowledge?

It's like a preemptory feel-out of your surroundings, and now that I think about it, it isn't so incompatible with the "type-molding" model I'm referring to.

Or I could be completely wrong, and that's just you, so I've unwittingly turned you off anyway.

Whatever the case is, in the future I would avoid talking about batteries in a generalized persuasive essay. And I'm not saying that because batteries are beyond my scope -- I am wholly ignorant about them, but I can learn in an awful hurry.

That's the point I think Sean was trying to make: A general reader who doesn't know too much about batteries, won't care too much for your essay. But suppose that the reader studies nothing but batteries for two weeks; now they might be fascinated with your essay (or not, because I'm totally clueless as to whether you're saying something really simple or something really complex -- though I could probably venture a guess).

I shouldn't have to know anything technical beyond what is common knowledge in a 10th grade English class (the bar for the kind of essays your classmates are likely to submit, and what your teacher is use to).

Can you guess that I barely read your essay?

I shouldn't have to devote an inordinate amount of time as a pre-requisite to fully understand the implications of what you're saying.

If I want to know batteries I'll take a structured course about them, or learn about them comprehensively on my own. I'm rambling now in the hope that the point will reach home, but have you ever called or consulted with someone about anything?

Are you familiar with the "bottom line" in accounting?

Would you be interested as a client, to hear your accountant rattling off these terms you've never heard, nor have any interest in hearing, or would you like to know what the "bottom line" showing the profit or loss is?

What if the accountant could tie in all those exotic terms with the ability of the proprietor to make a boatload of cash?

Now suddenly, he's taken an interest in what he wouldn't have, otherwise.

So your job is to focus on writing persuasive essays that emphasize the craft of writing well, unless if you can in some subtle way include all these things while still keeping the reader interested. The ability to do that is actually the ability you're being asked to work on; persuade me that these terms have significance for me.

Hopefully I've persuaded YOU that it's worth your while to be a persuasive writer, because then people will devour what otherwise they would dismiss offhand.

You won't be able to make this essay until you are competent in writing well as a craft (partly the reason they require English pre-reqs in most colleges, for any major or field) in itself, which should be all the incentive you need to pursue that goal.

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------

But I'm sure you're mostly interested in improving the abysmal 72 at this stage...

Look over the instructions one more time, point blank, and try doing exactly what they ask of you.

After consideration if you find that you can't do it with the current topic, ask your teacher if he will allow you to change topics.

5 pages is not long. Even at your level you should be able to include roughly 5-7 cited facts per page (30 all together), and fill the rest of the space by expounding on them.

Make sure to post your essay, his comments, and the instructions, before you submit for a grade Friday.

Writing Feedback / CHANGE or AVOID CHANGE? Which is better? [4]

It's interesting that you are honest and not at all ashamed about being mediocre. Since you said something interesting, enhancing my knowledge a little more, I'll give one paragraph a vetting.

Well, actually, first let me be honest. As a rule of thumb, I think most people choose to be mundane because they let fear dictate to them, and the false security suffocate them. You reinforced that notion in me a little more with your honest confession to being a docile sheep.

Oh yeah, about your essay.

"To start with, I must admit that changes are always inevitable in life and provide challenges to life, which make one fulfilled and energetic throughout the tedious world. However, there are still a majority of individuals, including me, who prefer doing the same things and avoiding change. Here come the following reasons to support my view."

Kevin already noted the anemia in your opening sentence, so I won't beat a dead cat.

Are you talking about change as a concept, or changes?

Always doesn't always modify (pun intended -- I have to get some humor out of this) inevitable very well. This would be one of those times.

Did you mean to say challenges IN, or to life? (If you're going to stick with that sentence, life wouldn't bear repeating).

How "throughout a tedious world?" try "in a banal world." or try this ...energetic -- enough to overcome the banalit(y/ies) in life/of life. (Of course that is your view -- some people try to think fresh every day, and all the time)

Hahaha, you're not incorrect in saying "a majority of people."

Is one line (the middle one) all the breath you have before you start gasping for air?

Take it as a rule that the opening sentence, thesis, topic sentences, and conclusion, are most important in an essay.

You dropped the ball on the opening sentence, made a big improvement with the second one, and completely passed out on your thesis.

It's very ironic and humorous. Have you ever read the templates that go [insert xyz here]?

It seems you left the template for the thesis in its original state. [Insert main reason/talking point here]["Here come...reasons..view"]

Now all you have to do is fill the template. Good Luck.

Undergraduate / "The Heights"; summer school program [3]

Hopefully you'll outgrow this on your own because my telling you it, won't from here on spur you to completely avoid it, but don't say "My learning began."

It's a recipe for a grocery list. Just help us envision the situation and go dynamically from there.

"Witnessing..."

Do you know how hard it is on your audience to read that?

Take an active approach and explain what you did and what you witnessed.

Notice in the line directly preceding this, I repeat "what you" twice to help with clarity.

Your number one aim when writing should be clarity. If your reader cannot understand what you are saying, they will become tired and move on to something that tends to make sense to them.

"Interested in how our government functions as a whole, and with other countries, I will gain more knowledge on these issues through JSA."

What do you mean 'other countries'? This resembles some kind of equivocation.

You need parallel structure, generally throughout your essay(s).

If you're serious about writing well, write a lot, and read also.

Writing Feedback / Do you support it or not? A mall construction in your neighborhood [6]

I don't think because it is your neighborhood, you necessarily own own your living space. What if you're renting an apartment, or someone's house or basement.

I think the "price as an obstacle" notion makes a lot of sense here though, if your instructor won't be offended (they shouldn't, if they are competent).

There's a ward in Washington DC that has no sit-in restaurants and just one Giant, which upon construction was hailed as a major event.

Development is synonymous with pop. growth and high rents, as philboy noted.

If you want to take the opposite approach, you might describe how noise and commotion irritate you.

Writing Feedback / Violence and the youth - two reports [3]

Here are some quick revisions you could make to the essay in your latest post. I'll do 1 line for every 5-6 in your essay.

line 1 - In society today, a major phenomonen is becoming apparent with violent video games wherein...

line 6 - Psychologists have documented that kids who play violent video games are more prone to engage in violent behavior themselves, compared to kids who... (Only if you are at liberty to say that -- if it's actually true. Sean makes a good point that the only thing concurrence proves, at least at first sight, is concurrence.)

Scratch that:

Now that I read your essay in one pass, I think you should modify your perspective first, before worrying about grammar errors.

It seems you are not even being asked to suppport one side or the other; these essays are the easiest.

Go back and change your essay so it reads like a bland user manual. Summarize the arguments
"Alex says this.." but "Bianca says that"; there is nothing to it. The only way you could do an exceptional job on this kind of paper is by knowing the arguments really well and explaining them really well. Otherwise, it's a 20 minute assignment, and there isn't a wrong answer.

If you're going to take a stake in one voluntarily, pick the right argument.

If not, you have to be adept at writing about grandiose theory and possible flaws in the more widely accepted argument.

Here's a start, my way: Behaviors learned in childhood can define a person as an adult... This is why _'s are alarmed about...

__'s counter that...

Give it a try, it's not at all hard.

Graduate / 'biology course' - Mech Eng @ UPENN [3]

What does the beginning of your essay have to do with where you stand now?

When you throw strong words like suicide and vengeance into the mix, it throws a reader off. Further, how does your interpretation of that quote as a struggle, in any way enhance the message your trying to get across -- I'd say it doesn't. You say "they still ring truth today?"

But how so? Haven't you already resolved those struggles with your decision to go into the field of bioengineering etc.?

"As a result of my encounters during these early years, it was natural for me to incline towards engineering. I graduated from the University of Windsor with a Mechanical Engineering degree. The University of Windsor had a world-renowned automotive engineering concentration which I chose to take part in."

What encounters are you talking about? You seem to hint more at experiences, than any kind of encounter. I'd use "those" in place of "these." Accordingly, I would also revise the part following the comma to mediate an event way in the past. "I graduated from ...", sounds abrupt. It shows a kind of laziness that you are unwilling to couch that piece of information with at least a sentence or two of flowery language. "The University..." is painful to read.

Take a more active stance, and start off "During my time there..."

That's a start for now.

Writing Feedback / TOEFL Essay - Cars cause a lot of air pollution... [5]

You need an intro, body, and conclusion.

In the introduction, talk about the much popularized environmental movement which seems to be gaining steam with each passing day. Evaluate the movement, form an opinion, and as an extension of that opinion, form a thesis statement that answers the question of whether you agree or disagree with the above statement.

If you are in support of a tax on cars that pollute, please make sure to read up on something economists like to call negative externalities.

If you are opposed to it, there are a good number of tracks you can take, taking after your approach on the movement to clean up the environment and force accountability in general.

Writing Feedback / Advertisment analysis [5]

The fact that you'll be handing in the advertisement is inconsequential.
Assume that your teacher doesn't have any idea how to interpret the ad.
He won't be able to say, ahhh, the purpose of this device here is to ... or the purpose of this arrangement here is to ...

You're supposed to explain in immaculate detail, each aspect of the ad, and so it may as well be considered as a full fledged description of the advertisement itself. Basically you want to start off giving an overview by describing the advertisement in graphic detail. Then you want to break down the ad from the sum of its components into each separate component and explain how it contributes to the efficacy of the ad.

A novel approach might be to explain your genuine reaction to an advertisement, and blend that into the mix somehow. For example, if I see extensive advertising of something, I become personally inclined to view it in a more serious light, if for no other reason than that the person(s) are going to considerable lengths to get out their product or message.

By the way, this sounds similar to an assignment I had a long time ago in Psy 201. I guess the scope really matters here. Our professor just wanted us to write 2 lines on 5 different ads and explain how they fit in the Maslow esteem needs pyramid framework.

Essays / How to write Term Paper on Alzheimers? 5 pages with cover and bibliography [7]

You can't even manage the subject of your post correctly.
YOU REALLY SCREWED UP, LORI!!!

Syke, just messing.

You say you haven't written formally for 30 years? That's ok.

It's certainly commendable that you are willing to reach out for help, but in order for others to help you, you must take a few steps on your own.

The topic of your paper is Alzheimers disease, and so I assume this is a research paper.

All what you have to do in a research paper is find some good references such as encyclopedias, journal articles, or books, and paraphrase what they say. Of course, it's important to recognize what's pertinent to the discussion, and what isn't.

The research paper is like any other essay in that it must have an intro, body, and conclusion.
The intro in this case however, won't include much of an original thesis because it will be some variation of the statement "I'm going to talk about alzheimer's." That said, you should try to dress up the introduction in your unique writing style so the reader can get a sense of your flair for writing effectively, and tying your genuine contribution of your introduction, with the body on Alzheimer's which will mostly paraphrase somebody else's writing.

All you have to worry about is making an intro and a conclusion. The rest is just your ability to read something, repeat what you have read to somebody else, and avoid the distinction of writing what they have said verbatim.

So check out some books from your local library or collect some worthy references online, read up a good bit on Alzheimer's, and paraphrase what you've read. It's not hard.

Remember, you can shadow the organization of the body closely, of whatever your main sources are, so it's even easier than you thought.

Write a paper and submit it here for revision, at which point we'll have something to work with, and be in a better position to help you. Have confidence in yourself.

Undergraduate / Reasons for transferring (NYU's BFA Program of Dramatic Writing) [7]

Aaron, essentially what I'm saying is why is it that you couldn't say these things about any other college?

Why would the BFA program increase your level of sophistication and increase your knowledge and wisdom?

If you had to describe this program to someone, how would you describe it?

What does it entail, and more importantly how does the quality surpass that of other similar programs?

Undergraduate / Reasons for transferring (NYU's BFA Program of Dramatic Writing) [7]

What separates NYU's program from any other program?

Why do you truly feel it is important that you be accepted?

Undergraduate / Questbridge Application, vegetarianism [5]

Like Judas said, you probably want to explain your personal decision to become a vegetarian rather than the popular reasons promoted in public. That's not to say that those things didn't impact your decision.

You need two more things that impacted your life?

It's hard to measure up to dietary restrictions that endure for the rest of your life, so you probably want to mention things on the same level of importance to you.

Just pick two views that you have, and then pick two poignant examples that made, or reinforced those views in your eyes.

Undergraduate / essay on the topic "who i am"? [7]

With regard to the essay about who "you" are, you could argue that every single quality embodied in you, is encompassed in a more potent degree, in someone else. Therefore, there is nothing unique, interesting, or for that matter, anything that makes you, you.

Perhaps it is the combination of things, which all together allow for a nearly infinite number of different individuals, rather than anything particularly impressive that defines you.

Obviously on the Urdu-English essay, you'd have to interview someone who spoke both.

Post some material so there is something to work with.

Writing Feedback / My narrative story on how bank of america charge off department closed down [3]

While your story is no doubt interesting, it's confusing.

"Bank of America credit card charge off department closing down shocked many, and still raises disturbing questions as to why this happen."

When Bank of America ... dep closed down, it shocked many people, and raised some disturbing questions as to why it had happened.

"Everyday I attended work I notice that many other associates were always using sick days and had numerous vacation days that they were taking on a certain managers team not only did they have a substantial amount of sick and vacation days that were being taken."

On many days that I attended work, I noticed that other associates would...

I'm not sure what you are trying to convey here?

Ok, I think I get it.

Here are the main points you need to get across.

- the BofA department closed
- you had misgivings when you attended work and noticed that people who had taken a lot of sick and vacation days were still being regularly promoted

- while already working at the bank, you decided to apply for a higher position but were turned down because you had taken too many sick days

- a manager approached you offering to wipe your slate clean of sick days, for a price...
- you refused, and told your friend who also happened to mention the same experience
- you told "friend" (more likely co-worker) not to say anything about it, and she did anyway you found out, when HR called you to testify about your experience

- after an investigation it turned out to be the case that people were paying this manager for time off; they all got fired, but not you because you refused his offer

- you learned to keep your mouth closed, especially when it comes to nosy co-workers who like to make life miserable for everyone else
- the moral of the story is that you got something out of a negative situation

Re-write what I suggested in your own words. Keep those parts that are alright, and change only those that are confusing, namely just the beginning of your narrative, but also whatever you feel you didn't do a good enough job explaining.

I haven't done a narrative in a minute, but I think it's supposed to have dialogue, so maybe you should flash back to that day, or the days preceding it to enhance your story.

Essays / Goodman Brown's Epiphany Essay [8]

When deciding to test one's faith, sometimes the age old question of, "Do I really want to know?" is forgotten.

What does, "Do I really want to know?" have to do with the decision to test your faith.
Once you've decided to, haven't you already answered that question for yourself?

I don't understand what you mean there, so you could probably do a better job of explaining it, or make a new opening sentence.

Just on a side note, you use "sometimes" or a variant, 3 times in the first two lines.

"A man testing his faith cannot always see the impending danger in doing so."

Really, you can do a better job of explaining that. I think the man who is testing his faith has some idea of danger; maybe he just doesn't know how much the danger is, or he doesn't anticipate the nature of the danger and the deep effect it will have on him.

"After this life ... he knows to be good."

Are those people still good? That is what you imply. Maybe those are people he once thought were good?

"journey into to the dark woods."

"He insists that... showing that ...too far."

Use better words to describe "showing that..." Maybe it hinted at his initial reluctance at going too far.

"Slowly but surely, the occurrences in the woods"

Replace occurrences to add clarity and diminish awkwardness.

"...curiosity. His faith..."

curiosity; his faith is waning, but not completely disintegrating.

"Slowly but surely, ... Goodman Brown's faith. The companion in the woods ... family line and village elders.

The problem here is that you don't do a good job of introducing the concept that his faith is being stripped away. See, you want to mention the degeneration in his faith, which you do, but you also want to avoid redundancy, and the delivery here counts towards how well your writing is received by the reader. The first sentence doesn't do an adequate job; it doesn't use good enough words, and it is clipped. These two sentences are noticeably backwards, and they will hurt you. It's not good regardless of the circumstances, but more so when you are telling us an important detail. You need to vary these two sentences so they are worth in their own respect, and also make sure to coalesce them into each other.

Here's how I might revise it.

Slowly but surely, the occurrences in the woods start to whittle away at the base of Goodman Brown's faith. The companion in the woods takes it upon himself to chip away at one important piece of security in Goodman Brown's faith: the righteousness of his family line and village elders.

Remember to keep in mind that you said his faith was "waning, but not disintegrating."

So now you want to add the element that some factors are contributing to the increase in the rate at which his faith is becoming unravled.

As Goodman Brown ventures deeper into the woods, due to a series of events, we get a sense that his faith is now capitulating in earnest. Those events as we come to know, are caused by his companion; they rip into a central component of Goodman Brown's faith: the righteousness of his family line and village elders.

I'm going to have to cut it short here.

Just fix the rest of your essay to the tune of these revisions and you should do fine.

Writing Feedback / IELTS Writing Task--Fatherhood ought to be emphasised as much as motherhood [18]

It's a classic breakdown in an argument, out of viciousness and disrepute -- failing to stay on point as honest people and reply to the others claims; the ones that comprise the argument, not the bickering.

Writing Feedback / IELTS Writing Task--Fatherhood ought to be emphasised as much as motherhood [18]

Ba Ba black sheep. More of the same.

What do you say of a person who says they will respond no more, but yet, does anyway when it suits them?

_____________

You are defeated not as an opponent, but as someone who cannot respond to the issue in any meaningful way but to further entrap himself.

Writing Feedback / IELTS Writing Task--Fatherhood ought to be emphasised as much as motherhood [18]

Great. We can add a few more words to the ad hominem list.

Sean is a man who likes to take words out of context. What does that make him?

Sean is a man who, after being throughly unraveled, has nothing more to say. What does that make him?

Let's add to this list.

Deceptive.
Defeated.

Grammar, Usage / What can help a student to write a good essay (research for my assignment) [7]

Tyler is right. Each manner of communication and essay has disparate attributes that need their own collation to demonstrate effectively what each form constitutes uniquely, as well as what aspects all those forms have in common.

Writing Feedback / IELTS Writing Task--Fatherhood ought to be emphasised as much as motherhood [18]

Sean, take a moment and listen to what you are saying.

You keep saying that I'm making ad hominem attacks.

What is an ad hominem attack?

It's a personal attack; it doesn't examine the merits of the issue in question.

Yes, in a sense, it is true that I have made an ad hominem attack against you.

Unfortunately, you fail to realize that the ad hominem attack I make against you, is relevant and pertinent to the issue in question.

You cannot obscure facts. You cannot play stupid any longer. You cannot avoid the question. I've exposed you enough already in my ad hominem attacks against you.

I don't know, but for some reason, as direct and in your face as I may seem to some people, I feel that I can be even more direct and cut off every possible escape route. I stop short of that because once I've exposed you, intelligent people should be able to use the tools I have given them to do the rest by themselves. If you force me to, I can go the whole length. I excercise self-restraint because I don't want to make you feel more uncomfortable than you have to. Once you've learned algebra, what is the purpose in solving individual equations?

Let's go back to your latest post. There is no better way to form a rebuttal. This time I will back you into a corner. This time there will be only question.

"That said, virtually your entire post is an ad hominem attack. It is an ad hominem attack elevated to the status of an art-form, admittedly, and as such has its own beauty, but it is an ad hominem attack nonetheless. You spend all your time parsing out a single sentence of one of my posts, which you admit you don't have to interpret negatively, but are choosing to do so because you're, well, you. You then, on the basis of that one construction, attempt to profile me as a writer variously cunning, tricky, or cowardly, depending upon your mood. In so doing, you completely ignore my own arguments that your original phrasing was both wrong and meaningless (and this, after calling me selective!) and in fact cavalierly refuse to engage with them "I could prove that Israel is a terrorist state by fact (which I'm not inclined to do at this point)'"

This is the crux of your response, in that it tries in some degree, a tepid degree, to actually frame some of the problems I have presented. It actually tries to respond to some of the issues I have raised.

"'That said, virtually your entire post is an ad hominem attack.'"

I admit, it is in large part an ad hominem attack.

"It is an ad hominem attack elevated to the status of an art-form, admittedly, and as such has its own beauty, but it is an ad hominem attack nonetheless."

See, I'd have to disagree here. I've heard that art is vain because it only focuses on aesthetics, which really has no purpose but to be pretty. I don't make these attacks against you for the sole purpose of trying to sound condescending or demonstrate that I know how to construct an effective attack. The attack in itself has a grand purpose which you're overlooking. It facillitates; it redirects the ball into your court :

"You spend all your time parsing out a single sentence of one of my posts, which you admit you don't have to interpret negatively, but are choosing to do so because you're, well, you."

You're right here again, so now that's 2 out of 3. I don't have to interpret it negatively, but I feel compelled to do so, because it is what I believe to be true. I took that leap of judgment which I referred to in my earlier post. I choose to interpret what you say negatively, though I don't have to, because I feel I have satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, by my own account, that, what I've tried to illustrate and prove against you.

"You then, on the basis of that one construction, attempt to profile me as a writer variously cunning, tricky, or cowardly, depending upon your mood."

Yes, I think it takes a variety of adjectives to describe you. One word cannot adequately describe your complex manner of working; it takes a combination of words that work together in cohesion.

"In so doing, you completely ignore my own arguments that your original phrasing was both wrong and meaningless (and this, after calling me selective!) and in fact cavalierly refuse to engage with them "'I could prove that Israel is a terrorist state by fact (which I'm not inclined to do at this point)'"

Hmmm, how can I say this?

I didn't completely ignore your arguments. That's wrong to say. I wrote up a lengthy ad hominem attack to explain why I am incapable of addressing those arguments. In case you didn't get the gist, or you don't remember, or you are omitting the short and sweet purpose of that diatribe purposely, I can quickly summarize and repeat it again for you, in child-like terms.

Here's the rub.

This is what it all comes down to.

This is the skinny.

According to you, it is wrong and meaningless to call Israel a terrorist state.

Let's suppose I'm adressing those arguments.

I can only argue that it is possible to call a nation a terrorist state.

I can defend against the allegation that calling Israel a terrorist state is meaningless, by perhaps, hypothetically proving that it is permissible to call a nation a terrorist state.

I cannot however, argue that it is not morally "wrong" to call Israel a terrorist state, insofar as you refuse in the face of overwhelming evidence, to admit that that is your opinion.

Mustafa: Sean, do you admit that you think calling Israel a terrorist state is wrong as a matter of your personal opinion, and are you willing to give your reasons why you feel that way?

Sean: No, I think that calling Israel a terrorist state is wrong, because terrorist state is a meaningless construction.

Mustafa: Sean, do you admit that you won't admit that you think calling Israel a terrorist state is wrong as a matter of personal opinion.

Sean: What opinion? I repeat, these are the facts...

How can I possibly argue against him saying that it's "wrong", when he adamantly refuses to admit that that is even the position he takes.

He has one foot in the box, and one foot outside the box.

On the one hand, he wants, in some degree, to say that it is wrong to call Israel a terrorist state because [Insert your reasons here], and on the other hand, for some reason he feels that he can't take the honest track, so he argues that it's wrong as a matter of some fact.

But as I so clearly demonstrated in my post above, is is very likely that when he referred to it being wrong, he was stating his personal opinion.

Essentially, Sean feels conflicting signals within himself. He tries very hard to stick to the detached, technically correct approach. However, he cannot resist but to state his personal opinion on the matter. When I spot his personal opinion, I might try to take him up on it. He senses that somebody might do as such, so for some reason he feels that he has to back out at the last second by reverting it back to the factual approach.

I love analogies. Comparisons are the preeminent foundation of thought.

Imagine the following. Two people sit across from a table. They are having a verbal debate about some topic. The verbal debate is the technical approach. Suddenly, one person punches the other in the jaw.

The other person who likes to debate verbally and to fight (inside the square -- outisde the square analogy in my earlier post in this same thread) says ok, great.

You want to fight, we can fist-fight.

Now all of a sudden, the person that initiated the fight by punching the other guy, says "No No, I don't want to fight. What are you talking about, we are merely debating"

Person 2: but you just punched me

Person 1: no, that punch was part of our debate

Person 2: how does a physical exchange fit into a verbal debate?

First let me say that it's not my place to tell someone if they should "verbally debate" or "fist-fight"

Ideally, it would be a combination of both, but like I said, if somebody chooses to do all one, or all the other, it's not my place to tell them not to.

However, when Person 1 suddenly strikes out at person 2, then refuses to engage Person 2 in a physical manner, much less admit that he even did as such, there is a problem.

It's called a sucker punch.

Can you guess who Person 1 one is?

I guess you could think of a varying number of ways, and words, to describe person 1, couldn't you?

For example: If you punch someone and then don't admit to it, what are you?

If not only do you not admit to it, but you manage to make a halfway convincing argument that it was a verbal dialogue which they have mistaken to be a punch, what are you?

If you feel the urge personally to fist fight, and then punch someone, but for some reason you can't bring yourself to let them get their chance, and you back out, what are you?

The ad hominem attack is purely an ad hominem attack when it serves absolutely no other purpose but to wage a personal attack on someone. However, I think I have done a good enough job of showing how my attacks on Sean tie in to the topic in a big way, namely that in Sean's mind there is nothing to discuss about the topic, at least in the sense that it is wrong.

So here's what I suggest. Either retract your statement that it is wrong entirely, or redefine what you mean when you say it is wrong.

Either way, you go back into your comfortable square, and everyone is content.

Then and only then will I explain why it is not a meaningless statement to call Israel a terrorist state.

I will not go half-way and let it loom that somehow I've failed to prove what I aimed.

Withdraw your half-hearted claim so that all that is left is square speak.

So that I can show that you are 100% wrong.

Writing Feedback / IELTS Writing Task--Fatherhood ought to be emphasised as much as motherhood [18]

Bwahahaha, this guy is a riot. Please, get a grip on reality.

"Actually, the second isn't implied at all. It is wrong, because the term terrorist cannot be applied to a state. It is also meaningless, because it does not convey any actual information about Israel, or for that matter, your reasons for being critical of it."

This is exhibit 1 of the prosecutor's case against this guy's bedeviling, contortionist behaviors.

It takes a lot of persistence, and painstaking meticulousness to follow his movements, but if you are genuinely interested in seeing the truth, you'll dedicate some deep, unflinching, intelligent thought to what I'm saying; otherwise I would rather you didn't read it at all.

If you can make the commitment though, please, follow me, and I'll show you the way.

First we must go back to his original post.

"I know I shouldn't, but I can't resist . . . "a terrorist state such as Israel" you do know that this is not only wrong but a meaningless construction."

He cannot resist here because, according to him, I've mislabeled Israel as a terrorist state.
Not only is that wrong, but it's a meaningless construction in his own words.

You have to drill through the semantics of the way this guy speaks in order to gain an appreciation for the misrepresentation and trickery that is his calling card.

He says, I quote, "this is not only wrong." ------------------- Let's stop here.

The fundamental question you must ask yourself here is, why is he calling it wrong?

We must, logically, as intelligent people, identify all the possible reasons before we can draw a conclusion.

There are only 2 possibilities here. 2 options to choose from.

Either it is wrong because he personally believes that it is wrong, or it is wrong because it is not correct. Specifically, there are two definitions to the word wrong here.

Something can be wrong because it is not right; again, because it is not epistemologically true.

Also, something can be wrong as a person's opinion of something.

For example, "it is wrong to steal medicine to treat a gravely sick person whom you love dearly."

One is debatable, one isn't. One is an opinion, one is fact.

"It is wrong, the way she treated him." -- "Your answer to the math question is wrong."

So, now that we are familiar with the possibilities, we have a better chance of understanding which of the two "wrongs", he was referring to.

If we can prove that it wasn't one definition of wrong he was referring to, it must necessarily follow that the other is true.

Instead of trying to make a value judgment on which of the two wrongs he was referring to, we prove that he was referring to one, by disproving the other.

So, that said, the only way it could be epistemologically wrong to call Israel a terrorist state is if it [terrorist state] is a meaningless construction. Let's move on to the second part of his first sentence.

"but a meaningless construction." --------------------------- Let's stop here.

Here he introduces, or he asserts that terrorist state is a meaningless construction.

This is good for his case that the wrong he was referring to was the factual wrong, because as I outlined above, in order for it to be factually wrong, the word itself, terrorist state, must have a meaningless construction.

However, he says "this is not only... but"

In English language, "not only, but" delineates a distinction between two separate concepts.

It is borderline syntactically incorrect to refer again to something already gratuitously implied in one part of a "not only, but" statement.

"Not only is driving without a seatbelt sometimes fatal, but it can also cause serious injury."

We tend to call these kind of statements redundant, informally.

If Sean were helping someone revise their essay, the great writer that he is, he would advise them to change that sentence.

Let's apply our understanding back to his original statement.

"this is not only wrong but a meaningless construction."

Remember, we are evaluating the possibility that the flavor of wrong he used in that statement, was the factual sort, as opposed to the wrong that has to do with opinion.

How much sense does it make as a top notch writer to say "this is not only wrong but a meaningless construction.", holding the definition of wrong here as incorrect?

Of course, if it is indeed a meaningless construction, it is incorrect!

This is as far as we can go. We can simplify the options based on analysis down to the following question.

Did Sean, the moderator, an excellent English (English is redundant here, by the way) writer, make an amateurish mistake of redundancy?

Or, can we make the leap of judgment to conclude that, you know what, I don't think it's very likely that Sean would make such a careless mistake.

If you can accept the premise that Sean wouldn't make that grammatical error, you are in effect left with no choice but to conclude that the "factual wrong", does not apply here.

Once you have disproved that it was the epistemological wrong that Sean was referring to, you can immediately conclude that Sean was making a value judgment (an opinion) that calling Israel a terrorist state is wrong.

*In condensed form, if you don't believe that Sean is capable of making such a careless grammatical error, you must necessarily believe that he is interjecting with full license of his opinion.

Now then, to clarify my gripe, it's not that Sean is making his opinion known, it's that he chooses either intentionally or unintentionally to immerse that strong opinion, in a bunch of factual sounding stuff.

You won't here Sean say, "Calling Israel a terrorist state is wrong because, say, Israel must defend itself against people who 'seek to wipe it out"

You won't hear Sean say, "Calling Israel a terrorist state is wrong because, say , Israel 'does not deliberately target civilians"

You won't hear Sean say, "Calling Israel a terrorist state is wrong because, say, 'palestinians are inferior and subhuman"

Instead you will hear this guy assert something very strongly, then watch as he ducks behind a bunch of factual sounding stuff that is demonstrably unrelated, as we have shown in one example, in one sentence here.

It's kind of sad really, that he doesn't have the guts or the fortitude to be a man about his convictions.

Instead he likens himself to "taking the high road."

What a load of rubbish.

He did the same thing in the Religion is insane argument, and thanks to this thread, I've managed to look deep within myself to find what exactly it was that irked me about his response there.

In retrospect, I didn't do the best job of explaining there, but I worked with what I could understand of my thoughts.

Now, with the benefit of hindisight, I know what really upset me about that thread. It's not that he's a moderator saying religion is insane.

"Moderator" was symbolic; my mind's way of grabbing a hold of a vase with some writing on it.

But until I could decipher the code on the vase, all I could say was this is a vase.

And being a prolific arguer that I would like to think of myself as, and some of you have probably noted, I was still able to make an effective argument with the vase alone, without even knowing its true base meaning.

Now, I'm very deeply satisfied to say that I know the real reason that that thread ticked me off; why it irked me.

This guy will "lob the grenade", as I referred to one post earlier in this same thread, and then he will duck and hide behind things like "Karl popper said such and such..."

or "...meaningless construction"

(The "Moderator" in my initial explanation, was a subconscious reference to his use of supposed facts, fake facts, to make his opinion beyond reproach. The moderator stature was akin to the stature of alleged facts by their strength of the irreproachability that they communicated)

Stuff that, if you take the proper time to analyze, is all part of an elaborate ruse to make a potent assertation, then cover it up 6 ways to Sunday with smoke and fog, which accomplishes two aims.

1) It makes the opinion hard to attack, since there is no way to argue against this opinion, because he won't even acknowledge the fact that it is an opinion.

2) The opinion is presented as a factual interpretation/conclusion.

In short, he presents an opinion as the logical conclusion (2)) to some facts.

Then, he makes it so that it is impossible to evaluate the veracity of that opinion (1)).

I hope that, in writing a whole essay about one sentence, written by a Chameleon who has mastered the art of circumlocution, I have helped you to gain some insight "not only" into the inner workings of his mind, "but" also how to analyze and execute the English language, which is what this forum is all about.

Of course, I can dedicate a treatise breaking apart his mindset and trickery, one painstaking piece at a time, but I don't think it is worth the effort, especially when this guy will give you the roundabout, and choose to ignore most of what you say, and I'm sure nobody is interested in overkill. If you are though, let me know. It would be productive as an exercise in mental acuity, analyzing one line at a time, and also I might prove that some of the things he is saying, which I have strong objections to, are untrue.

For example:

- the original purpose of his response that Israel is not a terrorist state as a matter of opinion.
- the other original "purpose" that Israel is not a terrorist state by measure of analyzing the word terrorist state
- his incorrect assertion that I intentionally called Israel a terrorist state to precipitate an argument. On that note, if I could prove that Israel is a terrorist state by fact (which I'm not inclined to do at this point), and that I do not even think of it as the least bit inflammatory to call them as such, this argument would fall. It's a verdict on the ignorance of some Americans that the statement Israel is a terrorist state is even a controversial statement. Certainly, I don't think it to be controversial. It's just true.

- his assertion that I'm needlessly provocative. There is a difference between being "needlessly provocative" and being pedantic and thorough. If I wasn't pedantic, I could not write about the fine tuned intricacies and inner workings of a complex language manipulator.

- that calling Israel a terrorist state is like hurling racial epithets. Again, this is based on the assumption that calling Israel a terrorist state is incorrect, much less the semantics of his twisted words. I had half the mind to start along the track of explaining precisely why Israel is a terrorist state, when I realized that perhaps it would be a difficult task with this guy, for obvious reasons, and also that perhaps first I shoud explain some other things first.

- that I made a pre-fabricated remark about Israel in a thread that had nothing to do with it. The reason this thread even stuck out to me was because of its immense relevance with regard to IDF's intentional, and barbaric killings of women and children; their dehumanization of Palestinians. Surprisingly, this stuff is common knowledge published routinely by the news agency Haaertz, available online to read. In the last few weeks or so, even the American mainstream outlets covered the news of Israeli soldiers breaking with the ranks and confessing how they targeted civilian mothers and their children on purpose. Yet, guess what, few people in America give a lick. I suppose if it was pictures of 4 year old Ashley buried beneath mountains of rubble, instead of a 4 year old palestinian girl, it would prompt some outrage. Part of it is the propaganda machine that is deeply a fixture of those whose interests are tied to Israeli interests.

The rest is his acknowledgment of his habit that he ignores most of what I say that is unpleasant, but true. There are many, many examples of this in his writing. He is discriminatingly selective.

I guess, at last I have this guy nailed down, like a screw into what was once the interior of a helium balloon, and now all the air is rushing out.

It's simple. This guy says he doesn't like to opinionate. It's true; you'll never see him articulate an honest opinion on anything that matters. He is too clever; too shrewd.

He won't lower himself to my standard; my harsh, bitter, scathing, and not that it should matter any, truthful standard.

It is beneath him to state his opinions and give his reasons. Instead he will work his web as I described, and somewhere in there if you look closely enough, will be his opinion as a mash-up of fake-factual rhetoric.

I feel I owe an apology to the creator of this thread for it getting so far sidetracked. It was not my intention to leave that comment for any other reason than the sake of it.

Only in the "creative people argument topics" thread, did I hope in any way for an argument, because that is what the purpose of that was about.

Sean is of course partly responsible for starting an argument that I can honestly say I didn't want, at that time, in this thread.

That being said, I'm glad for the result of this thread nevertheless, because I got an answer and a lot of insight.

Writing Feedback / IELTS Writing Task--Fatherhood ought to be emphasised as much as motherhood [18]

"*sigh* I know I shouldn't, but I can't resist . . . "a terrorist state such as Israel" you do know that this is not only wrong but a meaningless construction."

Sean, why is it that you say that it's "not only wrong", but a meaningless construction?"

Those are two separate concepts. One is that the term terrorist state is meaningless, and the other that it's wrong anyway to apply that term to Israel, even if they could possibly, correctly be labeled as such.

In playing devil's advocate, interpreting what you say there, it is possible that it is "not only wrong" / "but a meaningless construction", in one fell swoop, the former as a result of the latter.

But for a skilled writer like you, there is much room for doubt that you would repeat a concept that is implicit, in a redundant manner more to be expected from someone who is new to learning English, than from someone who helps others with their English. You didn't say "it is wrong on the grounds of it being a meaningless construction", as I'm sure you are capable of doing.

Let's try to untangle the hidden meaning here.

"Prostitution is not only wrong, but it's illegal."

Now we are getting somewhere. We have the same format, except in this case, more people have the capability to understand what is being said.

They would glean from this sentence, much as I gleaned from the sister sentence in your response, that the speaker's agenda is twofold.

One, to make a personal opinion on the matter, and two, to argue from a position of indifference supported by prevailing rule and notion as a means to distance one's self from the issue in question and give the false appearance of disinterest and technical correctness; merely observing and commenting as a logician might on whether or not an argument is in its correct form, as opposed to the judging the actual content.

Essentially, you mix opinion into the equation surreptitiously, not to mention in close proximty, to presumed facts.

Why must you duck behind a pretense of unattachment and correctness in the interest of form, in order to, almost undetectably, interject a strong modicum of your personal opinion?

It's an unscrupulous modus operandi that I have noticed in your writing.

Sean, you do realize what makes computers different from humans, right?

It's really all or none. If you want to project the image of neutrality and impartiality, do it all the way through, for your own sake; for the sake of openness and honesty. You're really tying your hands though, because it's not at all hard for a trained observer to spot when and where you step out of line, from the self imposed confines of your square.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't speak your personal opinion; on the contrary, I'm urging you to speak whatever is in your heart, and don't be afraid to consign it to its correct origins [from your heart].

Most people manage to reconcile life inside of the square with life outside of the square, but it seems that the same cannot be asked of you; the reason why for which, I have in mind a few possibilities.

If you choose to portray yourself as unaffected and immutably entrenched in the good soil inside of the square, then by all means, stay in the square.

Do not, when it suits you, venture outside of it to lob a grenade, then scurry back inside.

That is, in a nutshell what you are doing.

I can't speak for whether you do it intentionally, or unwittingly as a sign of deviance from a rigorous coping method that you've decided to carry with you, and has in kind, become a part of you.

Honestly, I hope you do it purposely, because from a mental health vantage point, that is more desirable.

Another thing I've noticed is that, hypothetically, if I went on now and tried to debunk your logic on whether or not Israel is a terrorist state, which I'll leave at an impasse because >>>>, you will disregard everything I've said prior to this sentence, skirt the issue, and pick and choose which aspects you will respond to.

So, for that reason, I'll leave you nothing more to reply to than what I've said heretofore.

Good Luck.

Writing Feedback / "Never too Buff"; two examples of thesis statments [18]

"First off Mustafa, I would like to say, You state,"It would be unfathomable for a person to expect themselves to look like a professional bodybuilder."

- I suppose you can fathom it after all if you are an optimist.

"My essay, is on the perception young boys have on these images, which they idolize. They are very impressionable and vulnerable at this age. You also mentioned that the International Federation of bodbuilders take steroids, they do? because it's banned, they are illegal."

- I'm all for your essay so you can achieve a good grade and excel academically, however you should also consider on occasion, how important it is to you that you excel personally. A lot of people like easy professors, easy classes, and the easy way in life. Many people would take you up on the offer to give them $5 million on the condition that they should never think or work hard ever again. In fact, I don't think it necessary that you stipulate for them not to challenge themselves, they are capable and willing to take that track all by themselves if given the means to do so. What am I saying? Hold on and let me refocus so I can get back to the particulars. Right. I guess the question is, Would you rather get an A and learn nothing, or get a B and learn something? Would you rather be rich and retarded, or capable and modest?

Have you ever heard the saying "An unexamined life is not worth living?"

Take it to heart.

Now then, let's suppose that young boys do idolize these athletes and muscular male models. Why is that a bad thing?

Would you rather young boys idolized morbidly obese, wider than tall, on the verge of heart attack, unhealthy people?

Granted, if you take fitness too seriously, that can be unhealthy too, but that's true of almost everything. All things in moderation, I would rather aspire to be fit than to be unfit.

Yes, young kids are impressionable. Yes, they are vulnerable. But to what? Don't skirt the issue, this is not half-speak.

Yes, professional bodybuilders take steroids, growth hormone, diuretics, and sometimes they will get pectoral and calf implants, and even inject oil into their delts and arms to make them appear bigger.

It is irrelevant. Most young teens don't look up to bodybuilders. I'm aware that steroids are illegal. Again, it is irrelevant. I chose that example to show something that if it were true, there might be just cause for concern, but it is not the case.

Really though, it's not even necessarily a bad thing to look up to bodybuilders as long as you don't emulate the unsavory aspects of the things they do to look like they do (using illegal, dangerous drugs).

You also mention that these body builders are genetically gifted, if so, then why take steroids?
Steroids alter your DNA among a whole list of other crippling and possibly fatal occurances.

- Steroids are associated with adverse effects on your health; I'm aware of it.

- I don't want to get started here. There is a common misconception among people who do not work out themselves, or people who like to marginalize others to make themselves feel better, that steroids will do it all for you. That couldn't be further from the truth. There are enough amateurs who take steroids in heaps and bust their balls working out, but they don't look like anything close to professional bodybuilders. The fact is, it takes a dozen plus years of training 6 days a week (sometimes twice a day) at an incredible intesity, eating several thousand calories daily, avoiding 80% of foods which are not conducive, getting adequate rest, having some of the best genetics in the world, and yes, taking steroids, at least for IFBB pros.

I do agree that you can obtain a great muscle toned body, by working out, but not the extreme images and unrealistc images that are portrayed.

What exactly do you mean when you say "muscle toned?"

The average person can add roughly, and I mean very roughly, 20-30 lb of muscle to their frame above their normal body weight, and at a body fat of 10%, without dedicating their life to being big, or putting unnatural substances in their body.

Just to put it in perspective, that's enough muscle to get you noticed by 9 out of 10 people without even trying.

Oh yeah, what are these extreme and unrealistic images that are being portrayed?

Care to give me some examples?

Each to their own opinon, but first, do some research, be informed of the dangers.

I dare say I've done more research than you, and I've seen and experienced these things firsthand, more than you.

What are the dangers? It makes for great comedy when an uninformed person tries to shock and awe a veteran.

Kind of like the lay person who has been inundated with a lot of misinformation and hysteria about something, and they meet their match in a person who is actually well versed in the realities of this thing. They shout, It's DANGEROUS! or, It has DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES!

If you wait them out and stand your ground, slowly they come to the realization that

a) they don't have any proof that this thing is bad
b) it is not bad
3) they've been misled to believe it is bad

in the order of first realization.

You know what? A fast metabolism doesn't exactly run in my family's genes.

But I wanted to see for myself, if really I was limited by something I had no control over. The answer was a resounding no.

Here's a link from when I was 16 years 7 months old, after 5 months working out.

It doesn't show me at my peak, and since then I 've come off a long way because it didn't appeal to me to continue with the same amount of dedication. Once I've proved to myself that I can do something, I don't find much fun in doing it. It's kind of a dangerous trait because sometimes you overestimate your abilities and write something off as doable, when it might not be.

Look at the picture and take my advice.

img401.imageshack.us/img401/2503/1485232orig.jpg

Push the boundaries, and think for yourself.

If you let other people think for you, tell you what is possible and what is not, and tell you what's the case and what is not, you risk abdicating your soul and never seeing reality or even at least coming to terms with it on your own.

If you go by convention, convention has it that you'll be a conventional person.

Essays / political science question -- pick a topic, develop an argument [12]

Yes, in retrospect, I would focus on Gingrich's successes and not his personal failures.

It is a political science class, so the teacher probably doesn't want to hear you rip a politician.

If it was any general writing piece though, I think what I suggested would be appropriate.