NationStates

Elemental North wrote:

The Treorai wrote:Beyond that he's manipulating it to make it seem as though it supports what he is saying, when in reality it has very little to do with his argument.

Like I said, I'm done with you. We're both right remember?

No, you have yet to prove anything, only spout several unrelated tidbits of academic article that have little to do with the topic of argument, and in one such case you blatantly edited it to make it seem like you were correct. So you are, in fact, wrong. Factually, and ethically.

Caninope wrote:

Elemental North wrote:
Like I said, I'm done with you. We're both right remember?

Oh no.

You made a false statement. You claimed that English common law derived from Anglican canon law. Ignoring the fact that the Anglican church did not yet exist, you're still wrong.

Nope.

The Treorai wrote:

Elemental North wrote:
Like I said, I'm done with you. We're both right remember?

No, you have yet to prove anything, only spout several unrelated tidbits of academic article that have little to do with the topic of argument, and in one such case you blatantly edited it to make it seem like you were correct. So you are, in fact, wrong. Factually, and ethically.

No, no, you're right. And so am I.

Elemental North wrote:

The Treorai wrote:No, you have yet to prove anything, only spout several unrelated tidbits of academic article that have little to do with the topic of argument, and in one such case you blatantly edited it to make it seem like you were correct. So you are, in fact, wrong. Factually, and ethically.

No, no, you're right. And so am I.

You made two utterly competing and contradictory claims.

Either both of you are wrong, or one of you are right.

Caninope wrote:

Elemental North wrote:
No, no, you're right. And so am I.

You made two utterly competing and contradictory claims.

Either both of you are wrong, or one of you are right.

And what of you? What are you in all this? A conscientious observer? An no, both of us are right in our own minds.

Ailiailia wrote:Right. Parents are the target audience of Disney.

I'm serious. Little kids will watch anything. Disney markets confused and confusing moral tales, which pass a cursory inspection by adults and have plenty of cute factor. It's about appearing to be wholesome and morally instructional (and I won't deny the artistic quality) so it makes money because parents approve it for their kids.

I'll repeat for emphasis. Disney product is successful because protective parents permit it without applying the same scrutiny they would apply for generic children's media. They trust the brand, Disney, and that's the only reason Disney's second rate product sells.

I wouldn't say Disney is bad for kids. It's mediocre. Parents would probably choose something better, except that the branding makes them think of their own childhoods. Before Pixar and Nikelodeon, Disney was the best of a bad bunch. Disney hasn't got any better. The artistic standards have dropped. But it is, only just, still the same branded product.

I think that's true for the animated films but these guys are talking more about Disney's live action fare which, to my mind, is aimed at pre-teens (and pre-teen girls in particular)... case in point, High School Musical.

Aushanit wrote:

Torisakia wrote:Eh, I find climbing Mt. Everest to be an easier challenge than sitting down and copying questions out of a textbook.

Exactly. I would have an issue with homework if it wasn't so god damn mind numbing. Although music tents to help and I'd say a 30 minutes of work 10 minutes to goofe off is a nice strategy or at least it was for me.

Some homework is better than other homework. Maths is very hit and miss. If it's challenging but within reach it's great but otherwise it's boring beyond belief or the easiest way in the world to stress (when it's too hard/or the trick is not obvious).

What you really have to watch out for is the assessment that was due in five weeks but is now due in two days. And due to the way NCEA worked at my school this typically meant that so was an assessment for every single other subject.

Torisakia wrote:

United States of Natan wrote:I did like ZEROhomework at home, and like no studying at all, and I got like the best grades in all my classes.

I don't get it. Other people do this and pass with flying colors. Yet when I do it, I get D's and F's. How?

I'm going to say that there are two options. One, they absorbed more of the material initially. Two, when they say they haven't done much their assessment of what is much is considerably greater than standard. For example, with level three economics I wrote out all the concepts that needed knowing and, to me, that was the bare minimum required (even though, in all honesty, I was typically good at remembering the concepts anyway) but at least one person who saw me just covering these notes again before the exam thought it was a lot.

United States of Natan wrote:

Elemental North wrote:
Which proves that grades are not a measure of your intelligence or your effort anymore, but simply what ever the fuck.

I think grades should be scrapped, and there should only be tests that do not count, and are only to measure how your doing, except for midterms and finals, the grades of which will be sent to colleges.

To an extent, this is how grades/marks work now. The purpose of mocks, for instance, is to provide a) a guide for the final exams and b) last minute cover. In year twelve my mocks for English were very bad (A, i.e. the lowest pass, and two Ns, i.e. fails) but when I wrote the two essays and the paragraph answers of the other section they didn't feel that bad. Had I not known the marks for that my tactics would probably have been exactly the same in externals (as opposed to the E, A, A I did get; which was very pleasing btw). Mock exams don't mean anything really in terms of even something intangible like four credits (excluding when someone is sick; a friend of mine was sick for the externals and failed a paper where he wouldn't have due to his tactics in the mocks being geared to risk a failure in one standard). That said, the results in mocks were used to determine awards at prizegiving (which sucked because up until those mocks I'd been steamrolling through English... rather suspiciously given the struggle that was the previous year but whatever).

Marks that are attached to the likes of credits are also signals... just for other people. They are, theoretically, indicate that "Forsher's understanding of this are of knowledge is at this level". Problems only really arise when the assessment method itself is bad at actually testing this. One of my big problems with English as a subject is that it seems very much to be all about pupil's regurgitating what they've done in class/read on stuff like sparknotes; often with memorised essays (not necessarily written by themselves). I don't think I personally did this too much but the bit where this definitely didn't apply (unfamiliar texts) I did really badly at consistently. And, to be honest, unfamiliar texts is both poorly taught and more like what English should be like (in my eyes). If Unfamiliar Texts is meaningless to you, have a look at this link.

Elemental North wrote:

Caninope wrote:You made two utterly competing and contradictory claims.

Either both of you are wrong, or one of you are right.

And what of you? What are you in all this? A conscientious observer? An no, both of us are right in our own minds.

If you are right in your mind, your mind is incorrect.

The Treorai wrote:

Elemental North wrote:
And what of you? What are you in all this? A conscientious observer? An no, both of us are right in our own minds.

If you are right in your mind, your mind is incorrect.

Because in your mind you're correct. Thus in our own minds we are correct, and thus we are both correct.

Elemental North wrote:

The Treorai wrote:If you are right in your mind, your mind is incorrect.

Because in your mind you're correct. Thus in our own minds we are correct, and thus we are both correct.

No, I am correct because I have presented well reasoned evidence and logical arguments to suggest that my point is correct. You have not done so. Therefore you are incorrect.

Elemental North wrote:

The Treorai wrote:If you are right in your mind, your mind is incorrect.

Because in your mind you're correct. Thus in our own minds we are correct, and thus we are both correct.

If I think in my mind that the book sitting in front of me is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows when it is in fact Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th Edition, then it doesn't make me any more objectively correct.

Advice to a freshman in highschool...

Take plenty of dual credit courses...don't be afraid to call teachers on their nonsense (especially those with that special ego)...Don't tempt those who mess with people alot...know that school bureaucracy is horrible... and if you feel suicidal half-way through the four years because of the nonsense going on around you... DON'T just don't do it

Caninope wrote:If I think in my mind that the book sitting in front of me is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows when it is in fact Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th Edition, then it doesn't make me any more objectively correct.

Sigg'd.

I'm still nonetheless correct. Just like you.

Elemental North wrote:I'm still nonetheless correct. Just like you.

So are you just baiting at this point, or are you just ignoring all reason because you know that you've lost?

The Treorai wrote:

Elemental North wrote:I'm still nonetheless correct. Just like you.

So are you just baiting at this point, or are you just ignoring all reason because you know that you've lost?

How am I baiting. I am stating my opinion, with which you are free to disagree with. You've jacked this thread to hell, and I was cuckolded into going along. I apologize dearly to the OP for that, and hope he takes my pointers.

TF2 Scout wrote:I'm entering highschool soon, and I was wondering what advice NS had for me. I'd appreciate the help.

Get a 4.0, make first chair in band, play a sport, and get a max SAT score.

Elemental North wrote:

The Treorai wrote:So are you just baiting at this point, or are you just ignoring all reason because you know that you've lost?

How am I baiting. I am stating my opinion, with which you are free to disagree with. You've jacked this thread to hell, and I was cuckolded into going along. I apologize dearly to the OP for that, and hope he takes my pointers.

I don't think that word means what you think it means

Maybe 'corralled' was what you were after?

greed and death wrote:

TF2 Scout wrote:I'm entering highschool soon, and I was wondering what advice NS had for me. I'd appreciate the help.

Get a 4.0, make first chair in band, play a sport, and get a max SAT score.

On the topic of ACt/SAT scores.

There is no such thing as 'studying' for those tests.

You take the hard classes beforehand, and build up your knowledge pool. I'd recommend taking the test before you have to take it... (if your state requires it) and hope for a lucky test.

You get a decent score, it's all smooth sailing.

(got a 34 on the ACT)

White Spider wrote:

Elemental North wrote:
How am I baiting. I am stating my opinion, with which you are free to disagree with. You've jacked this thread to hell, and I was cuckolded into going along. I apologize dearly to the OP for that, and hope he takes my pointers.

I don't think that word means what you think it means

Maybe 'corralled' was what you were after?

No, he means you had sex with his wife until he inserted his earplugs against reason.

Ionian Knights wrote:

greed and death wrote:Get a 4.0, make first chair in band, play a sport, and get a max SAT score.

On the topic of ACt/SAT scores.

There is no such thing as 'studying' for those tests.

You take the hard classes beforehand, and build up your knowledge pool. I'd recommend taking the test before you have to take it... (if your state requires it) and hope for a lucky test.

You get a decent score, it's all smooth sailing.

(got a 34 on the ACT)

Yeah, I got a 2200 on that crap S.A.T', you're correct. There's no studying for those, although some colleges do admit without looking at grades in general, JUST S.A.T's which is awful. Like my friend who got into Drexter on a full ride scholarship just because his S.A.T scores were so high, he got D's his Senior year in almost every class..

Ionian Knights wrote:

greed and death wrote:Get a 4.0, make first chair in band, play a sport, and get a max SAT score.

On the topic of ACt/SAT scores.

There is no such thing as 'studying' for those tests.

You take the hard classes beforehand, and build up your knowledge pool. I'd recommend taking the test before you have to take it... (if your state requires it) and hope for a lucky test.

You get a decent score, it's all smooth sailing.

(got a 34 on the ACT)

There most definitely is such a thing as studying for the SAT.

Hence why I was able to boost my writing score by some 150 to 200 points between my sophomore year and middle of my junior year.

join a club thats what the university wants

they want students that are active

join at least two clubs and that is how you start friends by joining clubs

that is an important part of being a freshmen

Cu Math wrote:

White Spider wrote:
I don't think that word means what you think it means

Maybe 'corralled' was what you were after?

No, he means you had sex with his wife until he inserted his earplugs against reason.

She didn't tell me she was married I swear.

Elemental North wrote:

Ionian Knights wrote:
On the topic of ACt/SAT scores.

There is no such thing as 'studying' for those tests.

You take the hard classes beforehand, and build up your knowledge pool. I'd recommend taking the test before you have to take it... (if your state requires it) and hope for a lucky test.

You get a decent score, it's all smooth sailing.

(got a 34 on the ACT)

Yeah, I got a 2200 on that crap S.A.T', you're correct. There's no studying for those, although some colleges do admit without looking at grades in general, JUST S.A.T's which is awful. Like my friend who got into Drexter on a full ride scholarship just because his S.A.T scores were so high, he got D's his Senior year in almost every class..

There's most definitely studying for the SATs, especially for people particularly weak in one subject.

And I say that as someone who got a 2220 or 2240 (can't remember which) and a 33 or 34 on the ACT.

EDIT: That's actually my problem with the SAT I, it can be gamed by looking at past tests.

Cu Math wrote:

White Spider wrote:
I don't think that word means what you think it means

Maybe 'corralled' was what you were after?

No, he means you had sex with his wife until he inserted his earplugs against reason.

No that's pretty much how I feel, like my wife just screwed another man.