a club240 tradition
04-22-2003, 11:59 PM
#1
Contributing Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: AUSTIN BABY
Posts: 692
a club240 tradition
its a sort of tradition of mine to post my papers when i write them....'cause they are usually all pretty weird. i'm taking a class with my GF and i wrote her paper, and i wrote my paper.......
all tonight. the papers are due in the morning.
all tonight. the papers are due in the morning.
04-23-2003, 12:00 AM
#2
Contributing Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: AUSTIN BABY
Posts: 692
about 90% done
In the editorial “A recipe for more dropouts”, Randal Jones argues against the Texas Education Agency’s decision to raise the bar on standardized testing for third graders based on the premise that this decision will cause an increase in the numbers of drop outs in years to come.
The absurdity of this assertion hits like a ton of bricks. If anything this proves someone somewhere will always be upset about one thing or another. I almost cannot comprehend someone linking holding a student behind (for not being able to read at a third grade level) to high school drop out rates later in their lives. I’m sorry, but if your child cannot read at a third grade level then in my opinion they deserve to be held back. If the parent isn’t taking time to sit their child down and help teach (s)he to read then the blame for failing a standardized test can only be placed on the parent, plain and simple. If anything this policy will improve test scores because if parents are told “Your child will not advance to the next grade unless they pass this test” they would make sure their children passed the test. I’m positive you would see a lot more parents at PTA meetings, more parents at student/teacher conferences. The parents would become more involved in their child’s education and that is what will push the grades up.
To not ‘raise the bar’ on these tests would be like cheating the third graders out of important knowledge and skills throughout their educational careers. As anyone who’s been though the educational system can tell you, these tests have ripple effects on other tests down the road. If the standards are raised in third grade, chances are the standards on the fifth grade test will be raised as well, and so on. Discrediting his own argument, Jones concedes that “contemporary society, in general, requires us to possess more knowledge and skills than was needed previously”. So why is Randal trying to undermine their chances for success by purposely denying them the chance of having a better education? If children are the future then I want them to be as best informed as they can be, especially if they are going to be required to ‘possess more knowledge and skills’ than we need today.
And the sad fact is that the school system in the United States ranks low when compared to other countries throughout the world. The United States is a world leader that boldly sets so many high standards and dares other lesser countries to try and compete…and then there is our education system, kind of sitting in the back of people’s minds twiddling his thumbs in some corner of some room. And the ES is back there and he’s thinking, “if only I had a little more people taking me seriously I could contend with all my cousins in the world market.”
The absurdity of this assertion hits like a ton of bricks. If anything this proves someone somewhere will always be upset about one thing or another. I almost cannot comprehend someone linking holding a student behind (for not being able to read at a third grade level) to high school drop out rates later in their lives. I’m sorry, but if your child cannot read at a third grade level then in my opinion they deserve to be held back. If the parent isn’t taking time to sit their child down and help teach (s)he to read then the blame for failing a standardized test can only be placed on the parent, plain and simple. If anything this policy will improve test scores because if parents are told “Your child will not advance to the next grade unless they pass this test” they would make sure their children passed the test. I’m positive you would see a lot more parents at PTA meetings, more parents at student/teacher conferences. The parents would become more involved in their child’s education and that is what will push the grades up.
To not ‘raise the bar’ on these tests would be like cheating the third graders out of important knowledge and skills throughout their educational careers. As anyone who’s been though the educational system can tell you, these tests have ripple effects on other tests down the road. If the standards are raised in third grade, chances are the standards on the fifth grade test will be raised as well, and so on. Discrediting his own argument, Jones concedes that “contemporary society, in general, requires us to possess more knowledge and skills than was needed previously”. So why is Randal trying to undermine their chances for success by purposely denying them the chance of having a better education? If children are the future then I want them to be as best informed as they can be, especially if they are going to be required to ‘possess more knowledge and skills’ than we need today.
And the sad fact is that the school system in the United States ranks low when compared to other countries throughout the world. The United States is a world leader that boldly sets so many high standards and dares other lesser countries to try and compete…and then there is our education system, kind of sitting in the back of people’s minds twiddling his thumbs in some corner of some room. And the ES is back there and he’s thinking, “if only I had a little more people taking me seriously I could contend with all my cousins in the world market.”
04-23-2003, 12:02 AM
#3
Contributing Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: AUSTIN BABY
Posts: 692
“Pilots: Just shoot to kill” the headline written by Ash Callahan read. As if drawn in by some unseen force I soon found myself reading this absurd collection of ‘intelligent thought’ that had somehow found its way into the daily paper. Surely I would hope this to be a joke; for in this day and age the notion of including more people on an airplane who have the authority to carry a weapon would be ludicrous.
Mr. Callahan admits in the article that “our pilots [are] being trained to disarm terrorists in the close quarters of their cockpits.” Any rational person can understand the clear and present dangers of introducing a firearm into this equation; just too many things can go wrong. The pilot can easily misfire and accidentally shoot and kill an innocent person. Or even worse, the pilot could misfire and shoot the plane. As we all know, tense full situations do not leave much room for insignificant things like time to think clearly about future actions; leaving those who are thrust in highly tense situations to react purely on impulse. Without that luxury it is easily feasible that a pilot acting with the best intentions takes his shot at a person who has successfully made it passed the newly reinforced steel doors (a product of 9/11). And with that shot shoots nothing more than a hole in the window of a little girl sitting with her parents in First Class.
In that instant there would be a violent explosion. In factions of a second the bullet hole in the window would grow exponentially until that bullet hole constituted a gaping hole in the side of the aircraft sucking people from the plane, sending them to their deaths thousands of feet below.
The author clearly is misinformed about many of the newly heightened increases in air travel security. Take sky marshals for example. It is their job to protect the workers and the passengers on an aircraft. That is their job. If a terrorist takes the plane, it is his job to take it back. That is his job. Instead of giving guns to the people flying the plane lets give the sky marshals the chance to do their job.
Also, the training and weapons most of these terrorists receive cannot even begin to compete with the training and weapons of our Nations sky marshals. Airports all across the country now require every person on board to be screened by a metal detector, so unless there is a breech of security in the airport no unauthorized person would even be able to get a gun on a plane; without a gun the offending parties would literary be bringing a “knife to a gun fight”. The advantage would clearly be in the sky marshals favor, and the unruly person(s) would never even make it to the cockpit door; again taking away the need for armed pilots.
Whatever your position is on the matter you should understand that security measures are in place to protect airline passengers; and though you may not see it, behind the scenes many people are there, all working to keep you safe.
Mr. Callahan admits in the article that “our pilots [are] being trained to disarm terrorists in the close quarters of their cockpits.” Any rational person can understand the clear and present dangers of introducing a firearm into this equation; just too many things can go wrong. The pilot can easily misfire and accidentally shoot and kill an innocent person. Or even worse, the pilot could misfire and shoot the plane. As we all know, tense full situations do not leave much room for insignificant things like time to think clearly about future actions; leaving those who are thrust in highly tense situations to react purely on impulse. Without that luxury it is easily feasible that a pilot acting with the best intentions takes his shot at a person who has successfully made it passed the newly reinforced steel doors (a product of 9/11). And with that shot shoots nothing more than a hole in the window of a little girl sitting with her parents in First Class.
In that instant there would be a violent explosion. In factions of a second the bullet hole in the window would grow exponentially until that bullet hole constituted a gaping hole in the side of the aircraft sucking people from the plane, sending them to their deaths thousands of feet below.
The author clearly is misinformed about many of the newly heightened increases in air travel security. Take sky marshals for example. It is their job to protect the workers and the passengers on an aircraft. That is their job. If a terrorist takes the plane, it is his job to take it back. That is his job. Instead of giving guns to the people flying the plane lets give the sky marshals the chance to do their job.
Also, the training and weapons most of these terrorists receive cannot even begin to compete with the training and weapons of our Nations sky marshals. Airports all across the country now require every person on board to be screened by a metal detector, so unless there is a breech of security in the airport no unauthorized person would even be able to get a gun on a plane; without a gun the offending parties would literary be bringing a “knife to a gun fight”. The advantage would clearly be in the sky marshals favor, and the unruly person(s) would never even make it to the cockpit door; again taking away the need for armed pilots.
Whatever your position is on the matter you should understand that security measures are in place to protect airline passengers; and though you may not see it, behind the scenes many people are there, all working to keep you safe.
04-23-2003, 09:27 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: From Sea to Shining Sea
Posts: 74
Originally posted by leiferik1
if your wondering the assignment was to get newspapers and pick out things from the editorial section and argue the oppsite point of view
if your wondering the assignment was to get newspapers and pick out things from the editorial section and argue the oppsite point of view
I put to YOU>>>>>
Why not submit to the same paper(s), your class articles? Yet ONLY if you feel the way you wrote. It will be seen and read..Very Well done
04-23-2003, 08:32 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: StL to Miami
Posts: 174
I have an english paper due tomorrow on hamlet, Ill post it on here before I go to sleep tonight 
should be around 1 am
its a 5 paragraph comparison between kenneth branaughs movie and the book/script/whatever. It sucks, kenneth branaugh is a douche.
also, we just started "R&G are dead", and I must say, exestentialism sucks my *****. i have know alot about it for a while, but seeing how teachers teach it just shows how much it sucks. its nothing but the product of a bunch of whiney, WEAK, depressed french people looking for a reason to either commit suicide, or live miserably. I hate the girl behind me, she is such a WEAK human being. she is gonna go to pomona
. she makes me sick, but if I say so her friend josh will punch me.... thing is, he hates exism because he doesnt get it at all, hehe. I keep trying to explain the concept to him, but he doesnt understand it.
should be around 1 am its a 5 paragraph comparison between kenneth branaughs movie and the book/script/whatever. It sucks, kenneth branaugh is a douche.
also, we just started "R&G are dead", and I must say, exestentialism sucks my *****. i have know alot about it for a while, but seeing how teachers teach it just shows how much it sucks. its nothing but the product of a bunch of whiney, WEAK, depressed french people looking for a reason to either commit suicide, or live miserably. I hate the girl behind me, she is such a WEAK human being. she is gonna go to pomona
. she makes me sick, but if I say so her friend josh will punch me.... thing is, he hates exism because he doesnt get it at all, hehe. I keep trying to explain the concept to him, but he doesnt understand it.
04-23-2003, 08:36 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: StL to Miami
Posts: 174
oh, and here im just arguing for the sake of creating some entertainment on this board:
your second paper is badly organized and seems to have no format. did the teacher just tell you to write on a topic and didnt help you along the way? it seems like something a person would write just for the fun of writing, not so much like a formal paper.
Im not trying to insult you, im just trying to get something, anything, going on here.
your second paper is badly organized and seems to have no format. did the teacher just tell you to write on a topic and didnt help you along the way? it seems like something a person would write just for the fun of writing, not so much like a formal paper.
Im not trying to insult you, im just trying to get something, anything, going on here.
04-24-2003, 12:31 PM
#11
Contributing Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: AUSTIN BABY
Posts: 692
Originally posted by Sinfestboy
it seems like something a person would write just for the fun of writing, not so much like a formal paper.
Im not trying to insult you, im just trying to get something, anything, going on here.
it seems like something a person would write just for the fun of writing, not so much like a formal paper.
Im not trying to insult you, im just trying to get something, anything, going on here.
ha ha ha ha
it wasn't a formal paper....obviously.
when i write papers i get REALLY high, so they may be a bit jumpy at times....but yeah. i had a lot of fun writing that. it made me feel like a dork 'cause i was getting into my own paper so much, and laughing at my own jokes and humor in the paper....and laughing cause i'm actually putting them into the paper.
fisty mc fist is my name....fisting hoes is my game.....MUHA HA HA
