<p>Do it. :D</p>
<p>yea he told me to "do it" AFTER he tried to call me an idiot . thanx for the encouragement chaos.lol</p>
<p>I haven't called you an idiot. Perhaps a misunderstanding?
You're welcome. 500th post. :)</p>
<p>He didn't call you an idiot, he called the school administration idiotic.</p>
<p>ohhhhhhhhhh. well i guess i really am an idiot. snif snif. i feel very stupid right now.</p>
<p>I have to learn how to read again. Chaos, you're awesome and a very classy guy.</p>
<p>I think that the sooner I bring this up in school, the better. Mainly becuase if I keep letting my imagination run wild it'll be a much bigger disappointment than if I got it over with quickly. I came up with a few ideas for the 4 page paper even before I talked to anyone. </p>
<p>craze200, it happens to all of us (but not to me in this particular situation)</p>
<p>Good job and luck, stuck!!</p>
<p>Thanks. :)
It creeps me out just thinking about the school's response. If they refuse then I'm really going to hate them (more than I already do because of the lack of....everything in school.)</p>
<p>Start your own one at home on your computer if you get rejected, but hopefully you won't. But as a famous greek philosopher said ,"You might as well try it. Y'aint got nuttin ta lose."</p>
<p>s/he must have beem one great philosopher lol.</p>
<p>doing it at home is easier said than done. I need lots of work, which I'm willing to do of course, as well as a reliable staff (which I'll have a hell of alot of trouble finding) and so many other things that would be better managed by a school than by a student.</p>
<p>ChaosTheory, I suggest you read "Politics and the English Language" by Orwell. You'll thank me afterwards:).</p>
<p>I contemplated putting an advice column if it was ever agreed upon, but then got rid of the idea because I know kids around here and the last thing they would do was asking someone they don't know for advice, even if it was confidential or anonomous.</p>
<p>How different are the kids over there from US teens anyway?</p>
<p>I shall read it; and I thank you in advance! Now - may I ask why? :)</p>
<p>the only difference I can think of is that there is a sort of "indifference" that lingers in every generation here. I mean, kids here only care about getting the grades to get into whatever school accept the higest grades. The sad thing is that not many of them do.
and teens don't really care about ECs or anything to develop the mind. thinking ends after the bell rings.
that's 3rd world countries for you...</p>
<p>oh you'll see:)</p>
<p>From George Owell's "Politics and The English Language":
[quote]
The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I see now; I am a fool Penn, I am a fool. Thank you. :)</p>
<p>I used to live in a 3rd world country and it was nothing like that. The kids were actually lazier than as you've explained. They didn't care about grades and there was no such thing as ECs so...........................................
Sometimes I wonder how my life would've turned out if I never left there.</p>
<p>To ChaosTheory: I meant more along the lines of:</p>
<p>Operators or verbal false limbs. These save the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns, and at the same time pad each sentence with extra syllables which give it an appearance of symmetry. Characteristic phrases are render inoperative, militate against, make contact with, be subjected to, give rise to, give grounds for, have the effect of, play a leading part (role) in, make itself felt, take effect, exhibit a tendency to, serve the purpose of, etc., etc. The keynote is the elimination of simple verbs. Instead of being a single word, such as break, stop, spoil, mend, kill, a verb becomes a phrase, made up of a noun or adjective tacked on to some general-purpose verb such as prove, serve, form, play, render. In addition, the passive voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active, and noun constructions are used instead of gerunds (by examination of instead of by examining). The range of verbs is further cut down by means of the -ize and de- formations, and the banal statements are given an appearance of profundity by means of the not un- formation. Simple conjunctions and prepositions are replaced by such phrases as with respect to, having regard to, the fact that, by dint of, in view of, in the interests of, on the hypothesis that; and the ends of sentences are saved by anticlimax by such resounding commonplaces as greatly to be desired, cannot be left out of account, a development to be expected in the near future, deserving of serious consideration, brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and so on and so forth. </p>
<p>Pretentious diction. Words like phenomenon, element, individual (as noun), objective, categorical, effective, virtual, basic, primary, promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate, are used to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgements. Adjectives like epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, triumphant, age-old, inevitable, inexorable, veritable, are used to dignify the sordid process of international politics, while writing that aims at glorifying war usually takes on an archaic colour, its characteristic words being: realm, throne, chariot, mailed fist, trident, sword, shield, buckler, banner, jackboot, clarion. Foreign words and expressions such as cul de sac, ancien regime, deus ex machina, mutatis mutandis, status quo, gleichschaltung, weltanschauung , are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i.e., e.g. and etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in the English language. Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous , and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon numbers. The jargon peculiar to Marxist writing (hyena, hangman, cannibal, petty bourgeois, these gentry, lackey, flunkey, mad dog, White Guard, etc.) consists largely of words translated from Russian, German, or French; but the normal way of coining a new word is to use Latin or Greek root with the appropriate affix and, where necessary, the size formation. It is often easier to make up words of this kind (deregionalize, impermissible, extramarital, non-fragmentary and so forth) than to think up the English words that will cover one's meaning. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness. </p>
<p>Meaningless words. In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality," while another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness," the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.</p>
<p>AND NO!!!!! YOU'RE NOT A FOOL.:)</p>
<p>To stuck: did I write greek? I meant geek! ;)</p>