Writing Feedback / Responce towards Iron Dice by John G. Stoessinger (Essay about cause of WW1) [2]

Basically this is a response towards John G. Stoessinger's essay "Iron Dice: The causes of WW1" In case you haven't read this passage before, his main thesis is that

"The notion that WW1 is beyond men's control is wrong: Mortals made these decisions. They made them in fear and in trembling but they made them nonetheless. In most cases, the decision makers were not evil people bent on destruction but were frightened and entrapped by self-delusion. They based their policies on fears, not facts, and were singularly devoid of empathy. Misperception, rather than conscious evil design, appears to have been the leading villain in the drama."

My Essay:

Although Stoessinger's essay was well thought out and well written, I am afraid that I do not agree with his thesis. To say that World War 1 could have been caused by just the misperceptions of a few certain individuals is to undermine its significance. The war is not just caused because of a few certain individuals, but also many other extraneous factors, such as the general public opinions and the illusion of a short term war. Many of these factors could not be simply controlled by a few men, no matter how much power or authority they have.

The blame placed on the leaders of the countries is very much misplaced. Although they had a great deal of power, they were still influenced by what the citizens and what other government officials think about the war. Stoessinger blames the Kaiser for his paranoia and hatred of Slavs which had clouded the Kaiser's judgment and prompted him to lead German to strike first. But the Kaiser was not the only one in Germany who wanted to wage war. Many government circles also thought that the time was propitious for a European war. [Fischer, p. 72] The decision of waging war, contrary to Stoessinger's view, was not orchestrated single-handedly by a paranoid and arrogant Kaiser, but rather backed by many government officials as well.

All the European countries had good reasons for wanting a war as well. "Serbia was right in wanting to expand, Austria in wanting to survive. Germany was right in fearing isolation, Great Britain in fearing German power." [Remak, p.62] All these countries needed to wage war since the balance of power was no longer balanced. All of these countries had good motives for a war, therefore, it is illogical to place the blame just upon the leaders of those countries, rather than analyzing the circumstances that made the countries want to wage war.

Furthermore, no one thought that the war would drag on for more than a couple of weeks. As Stoessinger himself wrote, the Germans thought that their soldiers would be home "before the leaves have fallen from the trees." The Russian Imperial Guard even considered brining their dress uniforms along with them for the parade in Berlin. Everyone thought that this war would be over in a matter of weeks. This illusion made them more eager to accept a war, since it was supposed to be over shortly after it starts.

It is easy to place the blame of the entire war on a selected few individuals. We would all like things to be simple and finding a couple of unfortunate leaders in power guilty seems to be the easiest solution. However, the truth is just not that simple. The truth is that everyone was to blame, the circumstances that created the need for war, the short war illusion that everyone entertained, and the governments who felt the need for a war. The responsibility of preventing World War One rests not solely upon the shoulders of a few selected individuals.

ANY ADVICE, EDITS AND SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO IMPROVE THIS ESSAY IS GREATLY APPRECIATED xD

Writing Feedback / "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight" History Research Essay [2]

#37: Describe the background for the slogan "54 40 or fight". How was this issue settled? How did it affect American, Canadian and British relations?

Okay as you can see, this is the question for my research essay. Please help me improve this cause I really want to get a high mark for this essay after messing up on my Musqueam one(another essay which I posted here as well)

But anyways, enjoy(but don't enjoy too much to forget editing it!) Help me think of a title as well, "54 40" or fight just isnt gonna cut it.

"Fifty-four forty or fight!" is a campaign slogan that mutated from a slogan targeted to manipulate voters into a nationwide cry for more land. The "fifty-four forty" refers to the latitude line of fifty-four degrees and forty minutes north. The intent of the slogan was to fuel Americans to declare drawing a line along the state of Oregon, which was jointly occupied by the Americans and the British, at the fifty-four forty latitude line. However, this would mean that the British lose the entire state of Oregon, something they would never agree to. The Anglo-American relations worsened during this time because the British made a few diplomatic mistakes, which worsened American hostility against the British. The issue was eventually settled by drawing the boundary at the forty-ninth degree boundary line, but America and its Congress was in hot debate for nearly six months. However, the main reason the boundary issue was settled peacefully was the fact that Americans began to overcome their natural patriotic passion and their hostility against the British to make a logical analysis that fighting for Oregon was simply not profitable.

Why was Oregon the object of so much debate? The state of Oregon has fertile soil for agricultural development, a great market for farm surpluses, and for Americans who were hostile towards the British, it was just a way to cause trouble and gain economical advantages over Britain. Polk's precedent, Tyler, proposed to place the boundary at 49 degrees north but in exchange allowed the British free navigation of the Columbia river. In 1845 James K. Polk , who succeeded Tyler as the next president, renewed this proposal, but removed the section pertaining to free navigation. This was not a really good idea, for the Americans did not lose much from allowing the British to sail through the Columbia River. In fact, free navigation might even bring in revenue from trading along the river banks. One of the few possible reason for removing free navigation was the paranoia that the British might make use of this route to attack America.

The British made a serious diplomatic mistake that made the negotiations of the Oregon state take a turn for the worse. Because the terms Polk proposed was less favorable than what the Tyler government proposed, the minister in London, Richard Pakenham, rejected it without even presenting the proposal to the government in London. Publicly humiliated and deeply hurt, Polk withdrew his proposal and ended all negotiations with the British. Polk then immediately requested the Congress to pass a resolution that would notify the British of the termination of the joint occupation. The British realized Pakenham's mistake too late and could not persuade Polk to come back to the negotiation tables. Pakenham's unwise decision of immediately rejecting Polk's proposal was not something diplomats are supposed to do. Even if the terms are unsatisfactory to Pakenham's standards, he should have still taken them to the government in London and see what they think.

The American community was outraged at Pakenham's outright rejection of Polk's proposal,. The natural distrust towards British people worsened. As a result, radical voices began appearing in Congress debates, voices that call for no compromise, voices that revived the notion of fifty-four forty or fight. One of these voices, McDuffie, stated that he would "Rather make that territory of his fellow citizens and color the soil with their blood than to give in one inch." In modern times, McDuffie would surely have been censured for uttering such words. However, in the first few months after Pakenham's rejection of Polk's proposal, patriotic and passionate voices, however illogical and thoughtless, were commonly accepted and looked upon favorably.

As the months passed, the talk of war and defending Oregon from possible invaders began to fade in Congress. Both America and Britain would not desire a war for it would seriously damage the economy of the two countries. As America slowly realizes this, logic and careful analysis began to show during Congress debates. Yancey, who was originally a proponent of war, stated that America was in the midst of purchasing California, which would provide grandeur and economical importance. If America enters a conflict with Britain, not only would they jeapordize the purchase of California, but the costs of maintaining this war would cost at the very least another $500 million worth of debt. Another Congress member, Evans, also argued that what lies between 49 and 54 degrees and 40 minutes north was simply a stretch of land no larger than 58000 miles square. Fighting for Oregon above the 49 degree latitude was not really worth anything except to mend some broken pride. But the loss of California and the debt on the country imposed on the country would surely be too much for the country to handle.

Eventually, the Congress voted in favor of "preserving peace of country honorably and of settling the question (of Oregon) peacefully... as a suitable and proper and honorable mode of settling national questions." The question of "Fifty-four forty or fight" was finally settled in the treaty of 1846 by drawing the boundary at the forty-ninth degree north latitude line. However, this boundary dispute should not have been such a serious crisis. Firstly, James Polk should not have withdrawn the article regarding free navigation of the Columbia River, seeing that it did not good and eventually in the treaty of 1846 free navigation was given to the British. Secondly, it was unwise for the British minister Richard Pakenham to act on his own and reject Polk's proposal. Being the ambassador of Britain, he was supposed to represent Britain's interest in those affairs, not his own. Even if he did not like the proposal, he was supposed to bring it back to London and let the Parliament debate over it. Lastly, patriotic passions blinded many Americans from the true implications of a war with the British. Such an act would undoubtedly damage the country as they might lose a lot more than the piece of land they might obtain. The shibboleth "fifty-four forty or fight" was an extremely important feature of the Oregon boundary dispute for it expresses the feelings of radical Americans who sate debating in the comfort of the Congress halls, who thought nothing of the loss of live and economy but only of the small portion of land gained in exchange.

For those people with no idea what shibboleth means, search it up on dictionary.com

Writing Feedback / Musqueam and UBC Golf Course Research Paper, Part 2 [3]

Another big problem with this deal is how secluded it is. Nobody knows much about it until the deal was officially released in November 2007. As mentioned before, the lack of representatives from any party other than the government and Musqueam Band makes the deal suspicious and unsettling. In June 2007, a petition was passed around the neighbourhoods, and on the internet, calling for transparency, or even some 3rd party representatives, in the negotiations. Sadly, no one seemed to have thought much of the petition at that time and the negotiations carried through, without anyone knowing the inside details, until its official release on Nov. 9th, 2007.

The provincial government seems to be overstepping its boundaries and perhaps even ignoring a few laws. The president of the University Endowment Lands says that the government has a statutory requirement, an obligation, to listen to them as the advisory body of UEL if there is going to be any changes in land use. However, the UEL was completely cut out from the negotiations and was just as clueless as everyone else in regards to the negotiations. Perhaps something one should consider here is the fact that money is replaceable, and land is not. We have only so much space to offer. Already four golf courses have been closed in the past 75 years, and out of those remaining, quite a few are private golf clubs, like the Shaugnessy golf club, which members are only accepted through invitation.

And not long after the Agreement was made public, the city of Metro Vancouver rose to challenge the Province once more. The city questioned whether the Province actually had the authority to give land, especially regional government property, to negotiate Aboriginal land claims, which, as I mentioned earlier, falls under the Crown's jurisdiction. Yet, from a strictly legal standpoint, the Musqueam Reconciliatory Agreement was not a treaty, and not perhaps even a legal settlement. It was just a gratuitous amount of land and money granted to three tenuous claims by the Musqueam Band. But then, why would Premier Gordon Campbell, in all his infinite wisdom, proceed with a settlement, even if it was politically unpopular and he was not obliged to do so? One plausible answer would be that he wants to gain the Musqueam Aboriginal's favor. He had told the Musqueam people "Trust me-let's find a solution that will settle the problems of the past and allow us to move forward together." Indeed he has earned the Musqueam Aboriginal's favor. But was it worth exploiting the trust that many people placed in him?

In Campbell's question #4 of his Elections 2005 Referendum, it read "Parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians;" 94.5 percent of British Columbians had answered yes, which made it legally binding. Section 5 of the Referendum Act states that "If more that 50% of the validly cast ballots vote the same way on a question stated, that result is binding on the government that initiated the referendum." But by signing the Musqueam land deal, Campbell completely ignored that rule and what is even more surprising is that it took a month before a citizen in Vancouver actually realized that. The province is playing the British Columbians for the fools that we are, for we continuously vote for Campbell and his party, despite all the disasters they have led, and will probably lead us to.

The Musqueam Band, through this negotiation, is nowhere nearer, and arguably further away from making an actual treaty. This negotiation does not help the process of treaty making nor makes things any easier for the BC treaty commission. In fact, this agreement makes a credible legal precedent that will cause quite a lot of trouble and much more land claims to deal with in the foreseeable future. But by then, Campbell would probably be retired and it would be someone else's problem. But the problem is: The Musqueam will grow greedy soon and will want to seize more land, and legal precedence will just make their case stronger. The original Musqueam traditional territory spanned a good part of Greater Vancouver. Nothing will stop them from grabbing a piece of Richmond, then another off North Vancouver. Also what about Aboriginal tribes who will rise up and claim more of land that is considered their traditional territory after seeing what the Musqueam got out of their deal? When will it end?

This is the second and final part of the research essay. Once again i left out endnotes cause I was simply just too tired. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

(And if you know anything pertaining to the topic, please do no hesitate to tell me, i would jump at the opportunity to get more information. But please cite your sources, MLA preferred.)

Book Reports / Macbeth Reflection, conclusion is a little cheesy? [5]

Macbeth Reflections

Macbeth is a book filled with betrayal, prophecies, revenge and many other themes. After reading this book I feel that Macbeth is indeed tragic because of his one fatal flaw, or harmatia. As one could see, throughout this book, Macbeth seeks guidance from the wrong people like the witches, his wife, whose ambition is as great, if not greater than his.

However, one must pause and consider whether Macbeth is really the cold blooded murderer and traitor everyone thought him to be. Firstly, the three witches, similar to the three Fates in the Greek legends, influenced him greatly with their prophecies. But without these prophecies of fame and power, would Macbeth actually have killed King Duncan? For instance, if Macbeth had not known that he would become king, would he have been bothered by the fact that Malcolm had been appointed the Prince of Cumberland? Would he, then, have killed Duncan to seize the throne? Macbeth most certainly has deep, dark ambitions inside of him, like kindling, but without the lit match of the three witches' prophecy, would his ambitions have been lit?

And secondly, irony is an ever prevailing theme in this book, from the beginning till the end. All of the witches' prophecies came true, but not in a way most readers would expect. That is why in any story, oracles (the witches in this case) speak in riddles, because they only gave away part of the whole picture but never the entire thing. What is ironic is that while the prophecies all seem in Macbeth's favour, he ends up getting killed because he placed all his faith in the prophecies and never even bothered with a back-up plan, and even though he is killed by Banquo at the end of the book, none of the prophesies proved false.

Another thing I realized in the book was the dilemma of whether Macbeth actually killed Duncan. Shakespeare neglected to mention a single scene where Macbeth is seen killing Duncan. The only scenes are before he kills Duncan (Act 2 Scene 1) and after he kills the King (Act 2 Scene 2). What happened in between those two scenes is an enigma which probably can never be accurately answered since Shakespeare has already left this world.

Moreover, even had Macbeth actually done it, the case would never stand to reason in our modern courts of law. Firstly, the three witches have told him prophecies which, as I mentioned previously, probably influenced him to kill Duncan. That would mean only a second-degree murder. Secondly, Duncan was staying in Macbeth's castle. The prescence of a king would probably guarantee a huge banquet held in his honour. Therefore, there is a high chance that Macbeth was intoxicated while doing the deed. That would mean only a manslaughter charge. Thirdly, as one could see from the book, Macbeth can become very bloodthirsty, and prone to anger. In a fit of anger, he had killed Macduff's entire family, including Macduff's young child. Nowadays, he could probably cope an insanity plea which would probably be sustained.

"Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more." (act 5 scene 5) This quote is perhaps one of the most recognizable quotes in the entire book. This could also be a theme to the book, Macbeth is telling us how short life can be, and how important it is to make full use of it. Perhaps that is the reason why he wanted to become king, to live life to the fullest.

This turned out a little longer than I expected, hopefully someone can trim it a little, and maybe provide some helpful tips. I think the conclusion is a little cheesy, might need help with that, but I really wanted to use that quote.

Writing Feedback / the Musqueam Reconciliatory Agreement: Part 1 [3]

There are two sides to every story, especially a controversy like the Musqueam Reconciliatory Agreement. If one asks a Musqueam native regarding the settlement, he/she would most probably say that the agreement was just. But if one asks a golfer who has been going to the UBC golf course ever since it was built in 1990 , he/she would most probably refute that by claiming the deal was done behind closed doors and no outside representatives were present.

In my opinion: Contrary to the Musqueam perspective, the lack of 3rd party representatives, the legal issues and the inefficient management of property makes the Musqueam Reconciliatory Agreement a bad, if not unjust, decision.

First, we need to understand the Musqueam Reconciliatory agreement. In 2005, the Appeal Court ruled that the Province failed to adequately consult the Musqueam Band when the province sold the UBC golf course lands to UBC. The court gave the Province 2 years to reach an agreement with the Musqueam. However, when the judge requested the province to make a decision, she meant to talk it out, make necessary monetary compensations. In fact, even the Musqueam did not want the Golf Course lands, at least not yet. They merely want to use that piece of land as a bartering tool when they finally sit down to negotiate a treaty with the Crown.

At this point, one must stop and ask, does the Province actually have the authority to give lands to the Musqueam at all? The Royal Proclamation in 1763 clearly states that only the Crown can sell, buy, or extinguish Native Claims and lands. No other document has refuted that as of yet. But Premier Campbell gave not only the golf course land, but also 3 other parcels of land in the UBC campus and a cash payment of $20.3 million.

As the band reported to the Appeal Court, the band needed the lands because its current reserves are inadequate for it's members' present or future holdings. But years later, with an addition of four parcels of land, all of which are used for developments instead of residential purposes, some Musqueam natives still live in desolation. Leslie Guerin, a 44 year-old status Indian, still lives with his wife under a blue tarp thrown between his motor home and trailer. Many natives like him still live without running water, heat or power. The Musqueam Nation, probably one of the wealthiest bands in Canada, has land holdings of hundreds of millions of dollars. But yet, on the far ends of the Musqueam community many houses are in desperate need of repair.

This is a Research paper I have to write on Monday, and this is my first draft. I am supposed to write 1500 words but I only got to 1/3 since I have to write it in class over 3 seperate periods.

So tell me what you think so that I can have a better idea on how to improve.

Note: I did not add in footnotes cause it's too troublesome, but i know how to do it and ill do it in class.

ANY help would be appreciated thanks.

Research Papers / Musqueam and UBC Golf Course [3]

HI guys,

I just want to look for some advice regarding writing research papers, such as citing endnotes, grammar tenses, things to look out for, etc.

Also, I wonder if anyone has any insights on issues regarding the Musqueam and UBC Golf course controversy, or Aboriginal Land Claims in general. (Please cite your sources!)

Any help would be appreciated thanks XD

Book Reports / Animal Farm: Reflection on what you learnt [4]

So basically we have to do a reflection on what we learnt from a specific book. I chose animal Farm, and here's the reflection, not very good so far.

"All animals are equal but some are more equal than others." That was the one thing that I'll always remember about Animal Farm. Not only is this a gross abuse of the word equal, it is also essentially how the plot develops, with the animals all treated equally at first. But later, some animals, namely the pigs, were deemed superior to the other animals.

Animal Farm is filled with irony and symbolism. One good example would be the name of the black pig, Napoleon. It is named after the French leader and conqueror Napoleon Bonaparte. I find it a good example of symbolism since Napoleon first fought to end the tyranny of the aristocracy and in the end, he became the very tyrant which he was supposed to fight. I realized that no matter how much power we have, we must never lose sight of what our original goals are. After all, Power itself can corrupt people.

However, I think that another problem that caused the Animal Farm to fall into despotism was that the fact that not many of the animals were well educated. Boxer, who represented the working class of the Farm, worked harder than everyone else. However, he had no political views of his own and took whatever Napoleon said to be the truth. That eventually led to his death at the hands of Napoleon and his accomplices. I learnt that the naivety of the working class, and how they were willing to question authority, acted as fuel to flame the ruling class' oppression.

Propaganda played a major role in Napoleon's manipulation of the other farm animals. In Napoleon's case, Squealer was Napoleon's propaganda tool. Squealer used many ways of persuading the animals, such as using large words, to make himself sound like a professional, skipping from side to side, and using intimidation, by saying that if they do not obey XXX, Jones would come back. Through this, I learnt that one should not listen to someone just because they are intimidating you or because they use big words. That's just ways to obfuscate someone so that they could not make a good judgment.

Please help me make these paragraphs more cohesive and help me improve in any way possible.

Writing Feedback / Essay on a carpe diem quote [3]

Write about how a quote reflects the idea of carpe diem (seize the day) or how you feel about it. NO limitations.

The quote i chose was:
Yesterday is history, Tomorrow is a mystery, But today, is a gift. That's why it is called "the present".

some of you might actually recgonize this quote from Kungfu Panda but it is actually by Eleanor Roosevelt.

TODAY IS THE DAY.

Imagine that you had a bad day at work. Your boss is mad at you, you missed the deadline for a huge project, and the worst thing is, you have no idea what cruel punishments is waiting for you tomorrow. But all these things are the past, or the future, which does not matter nearly as much as today or the present, does.

Yesterday is but the history. It is the past. One should never dwell on the past for too long. Dwelling too long on the past can let us lose sight of what is in front of you. Just as when you walk on the street, you don't always look behind your shoulder all the time. However, one should never ignore the past either. We always need to learn from our past mistakes and failings. As one of my teachers use to quote "To err is human. To make the same mistake twice is foolish."

Tomorrow is a mystery. Trying to predict tomorrow is like trying to read your fortune. You'll never know if you are right or wrong, until tomorrow arrives. However, just like the past, one should never ignore tomorrow either. That's why we always try to plan ahead so that surprises do not come crashing into you like a truck at 180 miles an hour. However, it is today that we should focus on.

Today is like a gift. A gift sent from heaven. No matter what mistakes you made in the past, you still have today to compensate for it. The time that we wasted and the time that we might be wasting is not important. Try not to waste the time that we have now.

What we did and what we might do is not important. You can do what you need to do now.

In short, we should carpe diem or seize the day. Today is a chance and an opportunity given to us 24/7 as long as we are alive. It is a precious gift. That's why it is called "the present."

i just need someone to refine this a little and help me with the intro and conclusion.

Writing Feedback / Socials Essay: Robespierre and Cromwell Which is a more effective leader? [7]

Cromwell and Robespierre. Two major Revolution heroes. One of them a military genius who remodelled the Revolution Army and led them to victory, the other an oratory master who inspired many to rise to arms with just a few words. So similar and yet so different. However, Cromwell would be a better leader because despite for all his faults, he did not need to rule through fear and his people led peaceful, grim and joyless, lives. But to prove my point further, lets take a closer look at our "heroes".

Cromwell rose to power in the war against Charles I who wanted absolute power. He quickly proved himself by reforming the soldiers into the New Model Army, which won the Civil War. Similarly Robespierre came to power with his oratory skill. The crowds adored him and he took advantage of that and inspired many to join the Revolutionary's cause.

Yet the two of them had not-so-ideal ways of ruling. Cromwell first kicked out the Presbyterians and other religious groups from the Parliament. Only Puritans remained. Yet when the Parliament refuse to hold an election unless they were guaranteed places in the new Parliament, he locked out the Parliament and ruled as Lord Protector. A man who fought to overthrow an absolute monarch ends up a dictator himself. Ironic.

Similarly, Robespierre ruled rather well at first and did lots of helpful things such as creating a new calendar and driving out the church. Yet, when rumours of anti-revolutionaries plotting to overthrow the government spread, he started killing people. First, one by one, then by tens and eventually by hundreds and so on. Around 40,000 people were killed in the Reign of Terror, singlehandedly orchestrated by this once sincere opponent of the death penalty. Even more ironic.

And now, onto how they lost their power. Cromwell had the army on his side, and he ruled till he died of natural cause. Afterwards, his rule was overthrown and constitutional monarchy was declared. However, Robespierre did not have the army's support on his side and had to rule purely through fear. But after he condemned so many people, he himself was in turn condemned. After a failed attempt to shoot himself, he was arrested and guillotined along with his closest friends.

And after comparing all factors of their rule, you have to agree that Cromwell is a better and more effective leader. Ask yourself this. Which one would you prefer? A joyless and grim life or a life lived constantly in fear of not being able to see the next morn?

well thats about it i guessed i rushed everything a little please give me advice on how to make this paper better and perhaps make a better concluding paragraph

Writing Feedback / Advertisment analysis [5]

This is just a regular ad analysis where you find an ad and write as much as you can. Please just help me improve on the fallacies and stuff like that, persuasive techniques and stuff like that. Oh and if possible, give me a rating out of 10. Be harsh!!!!!!!;)

Ads. Also known as advertisements, they come in all sizes, shapes and colour. The ways in which they attract people to buy the product(s) also varies greatly. But what makes a really effective ad? Well, read on and see for yourself!

The ad which I would be talking about today is found in the Vancouver Sun, among many other reading materials. It is trying to attract people to buy their phones, services, and/or their deals. This ad is about great promotion(s) which are being offered. This ad is effective because the first thing that you'll see is the three bolded and capitalized words "Great, Great, Great!" Just that very sentence would attract your attention and make you want to read on. And then you'll see the words "Great phones, Great Services, Great deals!" These words would really attract your attention and make you want to buy it.

Yet, even though this ad is very effective, I would not say that it is very truthful. It is not exactly telling a lie, but as one should have noticed, even though it claims to have great deals and services, there are no details to back up that fact. In fact, the only details you'll get are at the bottom of the page, with a font size almost too small for the naked eye. Most of us would ignore it at the first glance. In fact, the ad appeals to the second and third level of Maslow's hierarchy; esteem needs and belonging needs. They intend for us to see the product and really want to own it, so that we can be just like our 'cool' friends.

The language used, although simple and lacking in grammar structure, is even more effective. In the headings, six of the nine words are "great." Thus, even if we might not remember the exact details of the ad, we would definitely remember that it was "great"! The word "great" was used so that we are guided to assume that it is going to be a good deal, or that it is going to be very easy to own. In fact, "great" can have many meanings, not all of them attractive money wise.

This ad puts a lot of emphasis on our assumptions. With some well chosen words, we would start to assume things that were left unsaid. And in many cases, what we assume is not 100% true.

A fallacy used in this ad is called Gilding the Truth. Sometimes, ads use sweetened words to conceal the ugly reality behind it. The persuasive techniques used would include Bandwagon, Don't get left out, Great savings and easy to own. After all, They are trying to get us to buy their products to boost our self esteem.

The visual images are important to the ad as well. The colour red is used for the background of the ad. Perhaps that is because red usually symbolizes passion, and they wanted us to feel passionate, passionate enough to feel like buying the product right after reading the ad.

Two Blackberry cell phones played an important role in creating a subconscious message. These phones are roughly life size so that it would seem more real and make us feel that it is almost within our grasp, as long as we buy the phone and the contract that comes along with it. Another picture that has a subconscious message is the small image of a busy city beside the word "Cellcom". This reinforces the idea that Cellcom is Canada's largest exclusive Rogers Authorized Dealer, even without looking at the text beneath.

Great, Great, Great! That is the message Rogers is trying to send to us. Yet every piece of evidence is practically screaming to us that it is not necessarily so. Perhaps the next time you look at an ad, you should think carefully before rushing off to buy the product. It might not be as great as it seems.

Writing Feedback / Midsummer Night's Dream Character Essays [5]

OK its not really an essay though... we are supposed to choose 3 characters from the book and write what teen social group they belong to in modern times and why. Some social groups would be like Jocks, Popular kids, Nerds, Geeks, Loners etc. So far i only managed to do two. please review them, give me your thoughts and perhaps suggestion for a third character

Character 1: Popular Puck

Though there is little character development in A Midsummer Night's Dream and no true protagonist, people generally think of Puck as the most important character in the play. The mischievous, quick-witted sprite sets many of the play's events in motion with his magic, by means of both deliberate pranks on the human characters and unfortunate mistakes.

However, if Puck were to live in a modern society, like the one we live in right now, I think he would be grouped as a popular person. Being Oberon's jester, it is his job to make Oberon laugh, and because of that, he has gained a name for himself. In fact he is popular enough that most fairies would recognise him for who he is: Robin Goodfellow, also called Puck, as shown in Act 2 scene I of the Midsummer Night's Dream book.

And if you look into our society's main social groups, you would find that, like Puck, a lot of popular guys have fun and laughter at the expense of others. The others would laugh alongside because they wanted to appear cool as well. It would appear that Puck is guy with a vast sense of humour, that he would enjoy turning poor Bottom's head into an ass. That is another characteristic of a popular guy; he has a great sense of humour.

Character 2: Helena

From the very start of the book, we are introduced to Helena's problem. She loves Demetrius, but Demetrius however, liked Hermia. She declared that Demetrius loved her before he saw Hermia and that "He hail'd down oaths that he was only mine" And thus she is determined to regain Demetrius' love even if he hates her now. She declares to Demetrius that "I am your spaniel. The more you beat me, I will fawn on you."

While her determination and courage is admirable, if she lived here in the twenty-first century, I think that she would belong in a very unpopular social group. She would be categorized as a loner. After all, no one likes her, and she is always alone. Only her childhood friend Hermia would "hang out" with her. Therefore her life was a typical loner's life. She was rejected by Demetrius, whom she loved, when he saw Hermia. She could only find sympathy from lots of people, but never from Demetrius, whom she so desperately loves.

Being an emotional woman, Hermia wallows in self-pity, never trying to solve her problems. She merely keeps wishing that she had the charm of Hermia to keep Demetrius for herself. When Hermia and Lysander tell her about their plans to run away and be married, she chooses to reveal the plans to Demetrius in hopes of winning him back.

and just one last thing. I can't really find a way to conclude both of these essays please give me some advice too. Thanks!