Horrors of Reading Others Papers

[Puffy]

@Lobstrich: The latter point was about the original misunderstanding. If I misread your tone then I am sorry. No offence, but when you write you often sound aggressive, like you are defending yourself, this might just be the way you write. I am more sensitive than I sometimes let on, when I read "who the fuck are you to decide what is standard" I took it as an attack. Given your response it likely wasn't.

Moving on anyway.

As per school papers. You seem to be assuming because subjective variables exist the whole excercise of trying to be objective is not worth while - because a subjective variable exists the whole thing is reduced to what 'you think' and nothing less. To some extent I do agree with you. When I write a history paper I am very aware of the assumptions I make and why I make them. I do not completely detach myself from the research, some of the decisions I make are preconceived by my character and my individual approach to research, or the questions I ask. Someone's name goes on a paper ultimately because they are a part of it. And personally speaking, I find subjectivity a lot more interesting than objectivity; fantasy has always been my love over science.

However, what I can do with any area of research is limited to what information is available. I can't go making things up, so essay-writing's breadth is not always as wide as the imagination, it is rooted in the facts that are available and the number of ways they can be interpreted. What the information says - and what it means - is ultimately what I am trying to translate when I am doing a paper. Emphasising "I think" is a problem because it takes the voice away from the information and gives it to you. The paper becomes about you rather than the thing you are trying to translate. At the end of the day the way you translate is suggestive of "what you think" I just see emphasising yourself as a bit brash, maybe; like that guy who runs into the tomb poking and handling all these things with no respect for the culture. They could be sacred (?) That's why I wouldn't choose to do it that way anyway.

 

[Lostwitheal]

Bing

 

[Lobstrich]

@Lobstrich: The latter point was about the original misunderstanding. If I misread your tone then I am sorry. No offence, but when you write you often sound aggressive, like you are defending yourself, this might just be the way you write. I am more sensitive than I sometimes let on, when I read "who the fuck are you to decide what is standard" I took it as an attack. Given your response it likely wasn't.

It's probably the way I write. I only remember 3 or 4 threads where I've gotten aggressive.

EDIT: I can see that "who the fuck are you to decide what the standards are?" could be taken as an attack. But that's my point, really. Why all this hassle over words? All I meant by saying fuck was to empathise on the fact that none of us can decide what's "good" or "bad" And that we should stop 'raging' on people who do not meet our standards of writing or who use specific words that we dislike etc. Because, as I've said a couple of times by now; about what we're trying to say.

As per school papers. You seem to be assuming To some extent I do agree with you. When I write a history paper I am very aware of the assumptions I make and why I make them. I do not completely detach myself from the research, some of the decisions I make are preconceived by my character and my individual approach to research, or the questions I ask. Someone's name goes on a paper ultimately because they are a part of it. And personally speaking, I find subjectivity a lot more interesting than objectivity; fantasy has always been my love over science.

"because subjective variables exist the whole excercise of trying to be objective is not worth while - because a subjective variable exists the whole thing is reduced to what 'you think' and nothing less."

No, I don't find objectivity to be not worth while, it's very worth while. I think objectivity is better than subjectivity. I'm just saying that insisting on the illusion that one is able to be entirely objective is ridiculous. And that people who do not act as if they believe this (That is those who say "I think") should not be 'bashed' for it. Even if their doing it.

However, what I can do with any area of research is limited to what information is available. I can't go making things up, so essay-writing's breadth is not always as wide as the imagination, it is rooted in the facts that are available and the number of ways they can be interpreted. What the information says - and what it means - is ultimately what I am trying to translate when I am doing a paper. Emphasising "I think" is a problem because it takes the voice away from the information and gives it to you. The paper becomes about you rather than the thing you are trying to translate. At the end of the day the way you translate is suggestive of "what you think" I just see emphasising yourself as a bit brash, maybe; like that guy who runs into the tomb poking and handling all these things with no respect for the culture. They could be sacred (?) That's why I wouldn't choose to do it that way anyway.

I agree that "I think" takes the text to what that person thinks and not the subject of the text.
But then again. Isn't the subject really what the writer(s) think?
But again, I agree that if it's a requirement that the text is about the subject and not about the writers opinion the writer should refrain from writing "I think" unless they bring in an opinion.

But why would the be writing "I think" if they are writing about the subject, anyway?

 

[Lobstrich]

Bing

Titty biscuits? Lol.

 

[crippli]

Isn't 'I think' an ego trip? Yes, like Puffy writes above?

I think(lol, I actually think it's kinda fun to do it) you can get away with this on a forum, but I wouldn't take the chance in an academic setting. Not I believe, or I feel either.

 

[Lobstrich]

Isn't 'I think' an ego trip? Yes, like Puffy writes above?

All I do by saying "I think" is to tell you that what I'm about to say is my opinion and not something I believe to be a fact.
The reason I do it is to make sure that the recepient of what I'm about to say does not take it as such. Many (including myself) get annoyed when other people say things that are subjective as if they were facts. I do this so that those who get annoyed by the aboved stated, will not get annoyed. When you're annoyed a debate turns into an argument.

How is that "ego tripping"?

 

[Dapper Dan]

As an interesting side-note, I learned from one of my college ENG professors that the "standard" form of writing that we're taught in high school is pretty much useless for anything besides crappy writing assignments. No one actually uses it in the real world.

 

[crippli]

All I do by saying "I think" is to tell you that what I'm about to say is my opinion and not something I believe to be a fact.
The reason I do it is to make sure that the recepient of what I'm about to say does not take it as such. Many (including myself) get annoyed when other people say things that are subjective as if they were facts. I do this so that those who get annoyed by the aboved stated, will not get annoyed. When you're annoyed a debate turns into an argument.

How is that "ego tripping"?

I should get to bed now. So not sure I'll be able to elaborate on the fly and understandable.

Spoiler

It's rather complicated, and not sure it adds up, as I have not thought it through. But it's subjective validation. It's getting much stronger. Prison sentences more harsh, cause everyone wants emotional(subjective)validation,, and the objective becomes lost. I'll see if I can think this out in the morning. But it's a strong trend. And this has dark sides.

Even if what you say can be interpreted that if it's clear it's your subjective opinion, this can be ignored. But isn't it also likely that as it's your subjective opinion it's the undeniable truth for you, and not to be scrutinised? Perhaps this could work if everyone really kept to their own affairs, but that's not how humans operate. And that is not what happens. I wonder if this is not idealistic. Even if you don't intend this to be an ego trip, it can quickly become so.

/non coherent post. I must think this more through. I have/had the same opinion as what you write above. And it started when I noticed lots automatically considered their subjective reality as an objective one. Making it all confusing. So there are probably various reasons to use, I think, or I feel, or I believe. But the above is what I'm concerned about now. How much this right to feel righteous means on a larger scale, especially if the subjectivity, or thinking is severely offset from proof.

Also, considering we are on mbti forum. Should not I think indicate objectivity and logic, and I feel subjectivity. And I beleave, irrationality. That's at least how I use them, and I use them all all the time, to specify what category my ideas should be evaluated on, if I consider this to be necessary for clarity. Sometimes, I think, even as just an ego trip, to underline, that this is something I thought out myself. Although, that could be a mistake to do

Regarding academia.

Spoiler

A report is something you deliver in, and probably a tedious task to go trough. Standardisation seems efficient in this regard. Especially if it's a report, where fashion pictures of yourself will be irrelevant.

I've started up on university again(trying at least), after a long brake. Today there was a briefing on how to do the lab reports. It was to be passive(I agree with that), so no, I you we, in the text. But the list was rather long. Even text to tables and figures to be on their respective places. They would not approve the report if you failed to comply to the structure.

I got a laugh though in the end. It seemed the assistant had thought of everything how she wanted this. Finished the lecture with an additional rule "to the girls, no pantyhose is allowed in the lab". I wonder if there are boys who will take advantage of this, as it seems they have the go.

In any case, this was different then last time I studied there, but that was more mechanic and design subjects, this here course is chemistry. I can't remember that the structure of the report was ever an issue, or mentioned. But it's fine, doesn't much matter to me if I write it this way or that way. And as it happens, is how I write reports, so personally it's not an issue. But I did react to that you would fail if there was a slip. I would think a note to point out the error would suffice.

As long as they don't dictate how you are dressed, talk, latest hair-colour you choose. it's fine with me. The report is what they want, and what I signed up to provide. I find it reasonable that they can dictate the structure of the work.

 

[AlisaD]

Mommy, is Lobstrich getting banned?

On topic, I think that schools/colleges/universities should have high standards when it comes to writing styles, forms and grammar.
But I also think that if you are deeply dissatisfied with the standards of your own school, you should find another.

 

[Dapper Dan]

But I also think that if you are deeply dissatisfied with the standards of your own school, you should find another.

This is not always feasible, and standards often vary wildly from class to class and professor to professor. Still, if the problem is clearly systematic, I agree with you.

 

[dark]

Well look what happens when I avoid my room for a week.

@ Cheese, I think there are members attacking me in the manner present because I believe people see my manner of typing arrogant, at least I have been told so by various members of the forum. I also have on various occasions refuted many people's "I am so smart" thread with comments regarding the view that to me anyone who is a self-promoting genius, is probably a dumb ass because they really don't understand that there is so much more for them to learn, so as one of my fellow philosophy students jokingly said the other day while we were discussing some random idea, "If I were to think I knew everything, I must really be doing something wrong." Also the fact that I am endeavoring in philosophy regardless of the major draw backs that will incur when I try to get a professional job eventually seems to be looked down upon even by members here, the simple fact is that well, I will take a page (more like half a book) from Plato. The soul as he saw it can be divided up into three portions, Reason, Spirit, and Desire. While most people go into school looking for a job with their Desire of wealth or making a "good life," they can't seem to understand that some people do not let that rule them, for me, wisdom is more important than money and it just so happens, I am perfectly happy to take the path that lies before me.

And because of this path, I will most likely end up as a professor some day. The shock came from the fact that I graduated from a Community College and went to the best University for Philosophy in my state that wasn't a private school, which there was no way in hell I could afford, and find that the students are no different, even in the philosophy department, true I have met some amazing people and have befriended them, but it saddens me that this is the best we have in this state. My friends in my dorm have started to get me to review their papers and I am hoping it will help them. I know I am not the best, but I tried hard, I do not believe in not giving my all in something I care about and education just so happens to be that. Sure I fuck up, I get Bs on some tests and papers, but I work my ass off even so. I also am ignorant and put off papers until the last day, which is something I am trying my best to break out of habit of doing. Though I am also intelligent enough to realize that I cannot spend my entire life locked in my room doing homework, so I have spent the past week avoiding my room as much as possible, only back in it now since I am dead tired from only 3 hours asleep because I had fun walking around and talking to people and enjoying music at a cool event we had, all cognitively, which proves that you do not need to be intoxicated to have true fun, which that is another topic all together. Anyways I am going to sleep so I can be cognitive for ethics later today.

Yeah sure I am stupid, my brain isn't some form of genius, but at least I realize that. You acknowledging that I am stupid implies you find your self oh so smart, which I must say, you must be doing something wrong because education should only show you how little and small you really are, with all this information I've gained, all I have really learned is how stupid I really am. If education is only making you think you are so smart, then something wrong is happening, because I am sure that is not what is supposed to happen, but really why would my opinion matter... I'm stupid remember.

 

[Lobstrich]

Mommy, is Lobstrich getting banned?

Uh, why would/should I get banned? I have what, 1300 posts? I'm not saying that, that gives me immunity but if I the banning of me would be because of "trolling" You'd think that the troll (me) would have been banned like 1100 posts ago because of the fact that I'm a troll..

 

[Lobstrich]

Regarding academia.

Spoiler

As long as they don't dictate how you are dressed, talk, latest hair-colour you choose. it's fine with me. The report is what they want, and what I signed up to provide. I find it reasonable that they can dictate the structure of the work.

But the thing is that when you sign up for the school you don't sign a paper that says "I hereby accept that the teachers will provide assignments that should be written the way the teachers want" -- At least not here in Denmark. I can't really speak for other countries, but I can say this; I think it's the same, hehe.

But I can somewhat agree with you though. You, me and the teacher have to find some kind of mutual language. I can't just make up stuff like Puffy said. And I never suggested that if people did so you should not "bash" their papers. But we were never talking about making up languages anyway. We were talking about the "writing standards"

EDIT: Also, I've chosen to not respond to your first "spoiler" because you said you wanted to think it through. So I'll let you do that, hehe.

 

[dark]

It is implied that scholarly writing requires claims to support your opinions. In any paper written for an academic setting requires these things, why I should post redundant information that anyone in an academia would know is beyond me? High school may have allowed you to get by, it may have allowed you to bull shit your way and make your teachers think so highly of you, but that does not work after that. There are already standards set by some people a long time ago, I did not make them and they were not just something created recently.

If you give opinions without giving reasons your paper will not be taken seriously and what is worse, you could be objected to plagiarism and this is taken very seriously; at least in my state if this is committed you will be removed from school and never be allowed to attend another academic school for the extension of your life, now the laws may vary else where but here it is taken serious and not using reasons to support is only the starting point of this path as my English teachers explained. I know plagiarism has more to do with citing information than anything and even though I am writing this some idiot will probably rage at the start of my paragraph and post a reply before reading the rest. I do not remember exactly the example and how my teacher explained how not giving reasons eventually leads to plagiarism but all I can say is that I was given an example even though it seem a little odd to me as I even type it because I can't think of the reason itself.

Anyways I will look through my notes to see if I can find what her reasons where later, but off to class, ta ta.

 

[Lobstrich]

It is implied that scholarly writing requires claims to support your opinions. In any paper written for an academic setting requires these things, why I should post redundant information that anyone in an academia would know is beyond me? High school may have allowed you to get by, it may have allowed you to bull shit your way and make your teachers think so highly of you, but that does not work after that. There are already standards set by some people a long time ago, I did not make them and they were not just something created recently.

If you give opinions without giving reasons your paper will not be taken seriously and what is worse, you could be objected to plagiarism and this is taken very seriously; at least in my state if this is committed you will be removed from school and never be allowed to attend another academic school for the extension of your life, now the laws may vary else where but here it is taken serious and not using reasons to support is only the starting point of this path as my English teachers explained. I know plagiarism has more to do with citing information than anything and even though I am writing this some idiot will probably rage at the start of my paragraph and post a reply before reading the rest. I do not remember exactly the example and how my teacher explained how not giving reasons eventually leads to plagiarism but all I can say is that I was given an example even though it seem a little odd to me as I even type it because I can't think of the reason itself.

Anyways I will look through my notes to see if I can find what her reasons where later, but off to class, ta ta.

If you notice in my posts. I never said that one should not give opinions without reasons. So I don't know where this is coming from. (Unless it was not directed at me of course)

 

[Awaken]

http://www.freetopessays.com/content/paper-why-i-think-use-ddt-should-be-banned-worldwide

Here is an example of a paper called "Why I think the Use of DDT should be banned Worldwide. However, nowhere in the body of the text does the author use the phrase. Why is this? Because it is a redundant phrase that is inherent in the fact that the person is writing the paper in the first place.

Your statement of what the paper is about in your introductory paragraph is "what you think", the rest of the paper is "why". This is the format of writing a paper as to avoid redundancies and weak arguments. One could argue against what "you think", but you cannot argue against citations of already established ideals/facts. If one were to post a rebuttal to this paper, it surely could not combat subjective "I thinks" and instead would have to combat cold hard facts.


At most, your "I think" statements should be reserved for the "discussion" part at the end of a scientific paper/academic paper. "I think" as a persuasive argument is weak and too flimsy of vocabulary to use in academia. The goal of your intro and body should be to compose something that is beyond refute and discussion. In a strong paper, the only thing up for debate should be the discussion at the end. This is the logical reasoning of why, by convention, one should not include "I think" in a paper. Im sure I can come up with more if need be. It has nothing to do with the phrase per se, but how you go about relaying it in the most effective concise manner.

 

[Puffy]

^ Hendrix vs. Hendrix?

 

[Lobstrich]

http://www.freetopessays.com/content/paper-why-i-think-use-ddt-should-be-banned-worldwide

Here is an example of a paper called "Why I think the Use of DDT should be banned Worldwide. However, nowhere in the body of the text does the author use the phrase. Why is this? Because it is a redundant phrase that is inherent in the fact that the person is writing the paper in the first place.

Your statement of what the paper is about in your introductory paragraph is "what you think", the rest of the paper is "why". This is the format of writing a paper as to avoid redundancies and weak arguments. One could argue against what "you think", but you cannot argue against citations of already established ideals/facts. If one were to post a rebuttal to this paper, it surely could not combat subjective "I thinks" and instead would have to combat cold hard facts.


At most, your "I think" statements should be reserved for the "discussion" part at the end of a scientific paper/academic paper. "I think" as a persuasive argument is weak and too flimsy of vocabulary to use in academia. The goal of your intro and body should be to compose something that is beyond refute and discussion. In a strong paper, the only thing up for debate should be the discussion at the end. This is the logical reasoning of why, by convention, one should not include "I think" in a paper. Im sure I can come up with more if need be. It has nothing to do with the phrase per se, but how you go about relaying it in the most effective concise manner.

Yes I agree that "I think" is redundant. But I think I've already explained a couple of times why I do it anyway. A lot of people do not realise that it's implicit in the conversation. So to make sure that nobody gets angry by me "acting" as if my opinion is a fact. I make sure that the person who could potentially get angry, does not.

EDIT: I also agree that it's sort of 'weak' but what I initially was trying to say was that I did not think 'bashing' people who did use "I think" was fair because the people who do this still have something on their mind just like those who have 'proper writing'

 

[Lobstrich]

^ Hendrix vs. Hendrix?

Mine's better though!

 

[Awaken]

Yes, it is an adequate reason to bash someone. Anyway, the OP was not bashing these other students simply from them writing "I think", but instead was bashing them on a conglomeration of reasons that all amounted to them not knowing how to compose an academic paper. Academic paper being the key phrase here.

I think that you can say I think all you want on an internet forum post, but I think that in academia it is clear why it should not be used. This thread, being about academic papers and not forum posts, makes me not really understand why you are arguing the point that you are, other than as an aside. If it is the latter, then I agree with you, but I do not think you should then liken it to an academic paper.

Yes, someone who uses the phrase in an academic paper may still have something on their mind and to bash their intellect would be nitpicky. However, I believe the OP was saying that in addition to using such a phrase, they also had nothing on their mind in the first place.

 

[cheese]

dark, did I call you stupid or myself smart? I don't recall doing so and certainly didn't intend to. I'm not sure who your last paragraph was directed at, but it makes no sense in the context I was speaking in.

 

[AlisaD]

Spoiler

Well look what happens when I avoid my room for a week.

@ Cheese, I think there are members attacking me in the manner present because I believe people see my manner of typing arrogant, at least I have been told so by various members of the forum. I also have on various occasions refuted many people's "I am so smart" thread with comments regarding the view that to me anyone who is a self-promoting genius, is probably a dumb ass because they really don't understand that there is so much more for them to learn, so as one of my fellow philosophy students jokingly said the other day while we were discussing some random idea, "If I were to think I knew everything, I must really be doing something wrong." Also the fact that I am endeavoring in philosophy regardless of the major draw backs that will incur when I try to get a professional job eventually seems to be looked down upon even by members here, the simple fact is that well, I will take a page (more like half a book) from Plato. The soul as he saw it can be divided up into three portions, Reason, Spirit, and Desire. While most people go into school looking for a job with their Desire of wealth or making a "good life," they can't seem to understand that some people do not let that rule them, for me, wisdom is more important than money and it just so happens, I am perfectly happy to take the path that lies before me.

And because of this path, I will most likely end up as a professor some day. The shock came from the fact that I graduated from a Community College and went to the best University for Philosophy in my state that wasn't a private school, which there was no way in hell I could afford, and find that the students are no different, even in the philosophy department, true I have met some amazing people and have befriended them, but it saddens me that this is the best we have in this state. My friends in my dorm have started to get me to review their papers and I am hoping it will help them. I know I am not the best, but I tried hard, I do not believe in not giving my all in something I care about and education just so happens to be that. Sure I fuck up, I get Bs on some tests and papers, but I work my ass off even so. I also am ignorant and put off papers until the last day, which is something I am trying my best to break out of habit of doing. Though I am also intelligent enough to realize that I cannot spend my entire life locked in my room doing homework, so I have spent the past week avoiding my room as much as possible, only back in it now since I am dead tired from only 3 hours asleep because I had fun walking around and talking to people and enjoying music at a cool event we had, all cognitively, which proves that you do not need to be intoxicated to have true fun, which that is another topic all together. Anyways I am going to sleep so I can be cognitive for ethics later today.

Yeah sure I am stupid, my brain isn't some form of genius, but at least I realize that. You acknowledging that I am stupid implies you find your self oh so smart, which I must say, you must be doing something wrong because education should only show you how little and small you really are, with all this information I've gained, all I have really learned is how stupid I really am. If education is only making you think you are so smart, then something wrong is happening, because I am sure that is not what is supposed to happen, but really why would my opinion matter... I'm stupid remember.

The reason why you probably get the response you get is most likely the fac that even though you say something to the effect of: "My writing still needs a lot of improving", the rest of the text implies: "But it is so much better then everyone else's that they are not even in the same league". The same thing now with claiming you are dumb. Even if it is not what you intended to day (and maybe it actually is) your text will most likely be interpreted as: "I am dumb because I don't know things, but you are so much dumber because you don't even know you don't know"
Even if it is true, it still makes you look arrogant and makes people dislike you.
Not me, though, I think you're cute.
I wonder what happens to you once they start teaching you German philosophers, those guys were fucked up.

 

[Lobstrich]

Yes, it is an adequate reason to bash someone. Anyway, the OP was not bashing these other students simply from them writing "I think", but instead was bashing them on a conglomeration of reasons that all amounted to them not knowing how to compose an academic paper. Academic paper being the key phrase here.

I think that you can say I think all you want on an internet forum post, but I think that in academia it is clear why it should not be used. This thread, being about academic papers and not forum posts, makes me not really understand why you are arguing the point that you are, other than as an aside. If it is the latter, then I agree with you, but I do not think you should then liken it to an academic paper.

Yes, someone who uses the phrase in an academic paper may still have something on their mind and to bash their intellect would be nitpicky. However, I believe the OP was saying that in addition to using such a phrase, they also had nothing on their mind in the first place.

I actually agree with you. And if others have been saying the same thing as you. Apparently I agree with them as well, lol.

I agree that "I think" should be left out of 'academic papers' unless you absolutely have to give your opinion.
And I agee that it is fine to say "I think" when you're not writing said papers.

But believe it or not. It was never clear to me that we were talking exclusively about 'academic papers' which is the reason why I've argued the point so far. The reason I actually could continue to argue the point is because I don't like that there's such a thing as 'academic papers' but that's another topic.

 

[dark]

@ AlisaD, which of the German Philosophers are you referring to? One class is going over the ideas of the Germans, which are quite strange, but at the same time we learn them along side the English which are equally strange. Currently we call them Analytical and Continental. The Logical Positivists are fairly strange but I can find worth in them as philosophers in the fact that they proved they are searching for the truth when they came forward and showed that their own view was wrong.

Edit: Dumb is dumb, it doesn't matter the degree. I don't see any arrogance in saying that. It is very ironic I must say, I get attacking when people assume I think I am a genius, but almost everyone on here has probably either created or taken part of and really thinks they are a genius. Most of you think you are walking brains, that is arrogance. If I have to I can link thread after thread from where people here think they are so intelligent. It seems like a constant pissing contest. Hum... that seems to me to be... oh wait, immature? I am sure you know what I mean, when people are self-proclaimed geniuses. I have just gotten to the point to where I automatically think the opposite of them. I find us all dumb, the degree of being dumb doesn't matter since dumb is dumb. For all I know I could be the dumbest one here, or it could be someone else, who knows, I am sure this forum isn't something designed for an ego boost. I initially thought the forum was used to post ideas and have feed back from them so you could better your understanding, instead people just shoot down meaningless points and ignore the main point so nothing can ever be figured out, just a goddamn pissing contest because everyone wants to show everyone else up. Which is why I think a lot of people don't post serious ideas, nothing will be gained from it other than people stabbing at their terms instead of trying to figure out what the person means by their terms. We don't have intelligent arguments, just spitting on people without ever initiating an intelligent code of conduct.

 

[Lobstrich]

Edit: Dumb is dumb, it doesn't matter the degree. I don't see any arrogance in saying that. It is very ironic I must say, I get attacking when people assume I think I am a genius, but almost everyone on here has probably either created or taken part of and really thinks they are a genius. Most of you think you are walking brains, that is arrogance. If I have to I can link thread after thread from where people here think they are so intelligent. It seems like a constant pissing contest. Hum... that seems to me to be... oh wait, immature? I am sure you know what I mean, when people are self-proclaimed geniuses. I have just gotten to the point to where I automatically think the opposite of them. I find us all dumb, the degree of being dumb doesn't matter since dumb is dumb. For all I know I could be the dumbest one here, or it could be someone else, who knows, I am sure this forum isn't something designed for an ego boost. I initially thought the forum was used to post ideas and have feed back from them so you could better your understanding, instead people just shoot down meaningless points and ignore the main point so nothing can ever be figured out, just a goddamn pissing contest because everyone wants to show everyone else up. Which is why I think a lot of people don't post serious ideas, nothing will be gained from it other than people stabbing at their terms instead of trying to figure out what the person means by their terms. We don't have intelligent arguments, just spitting on people without ever initiating an intelligent code of conduct.

I have never claimed that I'm a "walking brain" but like you, I've seen several people who have.

 

[crippli]

They constantly use terms like, "I think," etc. They are seniors, we learn in Eng 101 and 102 that this is not acceptable in any form of writing, especially scholarly.

I think it just surprises me that people are so bad at writing. I keep encountering this.

You should probably explain more in depth. See above, it is slightly confusing what you mean.

It's nice to have an intelligent conversation, though I rarely get that, maybe twice a week.

And I can't help but find this funny. I'm probably reading this slightly wrong, but how do you get an intelligent conversation. Are you walking around recording conversations? And only able to get an intelligent conversation twice a week?

/As long as it's in good humour, I don't see it as so horrible to pick a little on each other. Sometimes it's even educational. And 'walking brains', I never take that stuff seriously. I presume it's at least halfway a joke.

 

[^_\\]

Except that it wasn't a scientific paper. It's a text analysis, where the only facts are going to be just exactly what the paper said and the rest is going to be what you think about it.

Btw dark I don't think you have proclaimed yourself to be a genius, I just really dislike the standard against saying I think, and you seem to think there's a "correct" way to write a paper.

 

[Lobstrich]

Except that it wasn't a scientific paper. It's a text analysis, where the only facts are going to be just exactly what the paper said and the rest is going to be what you think about it.

Btw dark I don't think you have proclaimed yourself to be a genius, I just really dislike the standard against saying I think, and you seem to think there's a "correct" way to write a paper.

This.

 

[scorpiomover]

The first requisite for success is to develop the ability to focus and apply your mental and physical energies to the problem at hand - without growing weary. Because such thinking is often difficult, there seems to be no limit to which some people will go to avoid the effort and labor that is associated with it....

http://www.thomasedison.com/quotes.html