Don't forget to vote in Tim's English Paper Poll!

DJ you're missing one:

Yes - if he had spent as much time participating during class as he did on OSP he would have aced it.

or if he was sober.....




(I really don't have any room to talk)

The web savvy always pass. Use the web/force, Luke/Tim!

Based on a recent post of his... I am assuming that his content will be good... but he may need some serious help in the grammar department.
PROOFREAD TIM!!!

(ugh, the evil English major just took over my body for a moment... sorry all!)

Haha... I can't believe I didn't see this post before. This is AWESOME. Now I just wanna know who voted which way.

I voted that I'd fail, but that who needs English anyway.

(What you guys gotta understand is that GE's at Brooks are a JOKE! I think Billy may have already pointed this out in another post. And that these GE's being a joke, the teachers who head up the departments don't always make sense... the assignment was to write a positional paper while remaining objective. I thought about questiong the teacher on this, but instead I am attempting to fulfill such a fantasie. And yes, if I spent as much time working on this paper as I have pissing and moaning about it, I'd of finished this whole thing a LONG time ago.)

Remember, vote for Tim.

3 people voted that Tim's a wiz kid!!!

So how did DJ vote?

Alright guys, I was informed by the teacher that she will have my paper graded and checked for plagerism by tomorrow afternoon/Thursday May 26... we need more votes, cause right now it's a 6/6 split on me passing or not, and the stress over which way it's going to go is freaking me out...

Timmy.....you've totally had me in suspense all day....

What's the verdict my friend????

Long story short, I sorta passed... if anyone ever see's me in person, I'll explain, it's a pretty interesting story.

Suspect!

LOL.

Sorta passed. What is this???

This is about as suspicious as the 18.5 min gap in the watergate tapes....

(Lol... I didn't wanna write a novel, but apparently curiousity has killed the cat)

Let's just say that originally I wrote about abortion, I wrote it from the perspective that the majority of Christians would probably write it from. Now take note, the teacher is VERY liberal. So... she ended up saying that I should try something "easier" to argue from my side. So she had me write an arguement between abstinence education and safe sex education. (Mind you, I was to choose a side, and argue the side ---- all while remaining completely "objective") I wrote this paper.

She calls me back, tells me my paper is full of "logical fallacies," which I was supposed to avoid. I questioned this, she said it was true. So, she decided we should meet and talk about it the next day. Well, needless to say, we sat down, and I had the chance to listen to her ramble, she explained where I had fallacies in logic and hadn't supported my reasoning. Well, I turned around and pointed her directly to where these things had been supported for the last two pages.

So she admits she was wrong here, but that unfortunately, the rest of my arguements are still full of fallacies... I ask where, she points, and says I have no statistics to support said claims, I then point her back two paragraph to exactly the stats she said I didn't have....

She then pushes the paper to the side and looks me in the eyes, and begins her personal attack, "You don't really believe this stuff do you???!!!!" "As a matter of fact, yes I do." Which goes into a five minute attack on my viewpoints on a personal level, which I defended quite well, and ended when she tried to give me the definition of some word. (I forget what word, I was too pissed at this point to try and remember for later.) Well, it just so happens, that her definition of this word is so far from the truth, that I sorta laugh, look her in the eyes, and ask her if she's ever seen that word in the dictionary, because the actual definition is not what she's saying, and if she wants a source for me to quote, she should look to Webster. This quickly turns her attention away from trying to rip me a new one on a personal level, and back to the paper.

So, now that we are back on my paper, which is full of logical fallicies, but suddenly full of none, she continues to tell me how well written my paper is, and that it would just seem I wasn't clear on a few points, that if I can fix these points, and put in a few more sources with statistics in favor of my argument, that I might well pass this paper, due again this coming Tuesday.

(Draw your own conclusions from this story, I know I've drawn my own. Mind you, this is a very shortened version of the story, we met for about a half-hour to forty-five minutes during which this all occured, so yeah... you get the story. Sorry to ramble, but Chris just expressed all too much curiousity.) (if only I had taped this conversation for you guys to listen to... wow.. next time, I'm taking my tape recorder, seriously.)