Assault of the Sno-Demons Part Two: Revenge of the Rain Sprites

S

Svenmonkey

Guest
Today's Christian Morality test misspelled "they're" as "their" at least twice. At least it's the most terribly easy class imaginable. Here's a sample question:

Does Jesus want you to kill every single human on the planet?

A. Yes, he's the frigging devil!
B. No. Praise the Lord, Jesus, Holy Trinity, Pope, Saint, Truth, Bible, Burn the Heathens, etc.
C. I like beef.
D. Jesus tells me to burn things.
 
T

train

Guest
What is a short answer question like...

Question: What are five of the ten commandments?

Answer:
Die you pig...
Go to hell...
Don't come back...
not in this life...
or any other...

???...

How many points would that be?...:p
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Today's Christian Morality test misspelled "they're" as "their" at least twice
That's not actually "misspelling" (unless they're spelling it like "thier" or something) but using the wrong <something>. Like when people mix up "effect" and "affect" usages.
 
E

EricBess

Guest
Originally posted by Mazzak
proof of this in the fact that you spelled Svenmonkey as "Mazzak" by accident... :p
Um...Yeah, sort of like that :eek: I'll go crawl back into my cave now...
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

Don't worry Eric, I, for one, find more genius and wisdom in an honest mistake than in deliberate genius. :)
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

Here's the preface I wrote for my ethics paper, which discusses the immoralities of love. Mostly, the entire paper follows a similar style.
Preface:
There is nothing more saddening then observing a scholar reverting to the ways of a so-called scholar, and to add to the grieving pain, when many “scholars” become the scholars of the so-called. One must wonder yet again: how valuable are words if they merely reformulate a norm or belief? And this is important especially when we listen to the norms and beliefs and hear that they are much too unmusical for the life of man – such unmusical songs cause ear bleedings and death of spirits.

One need not fool himself and confuse refabrications and wordgames with creation. A violinist who plays the same melody for many shows is lacking vision. Only a fool invites the same lie. And the same goes to our dear scholars who play the norm simply with different pitches, choosing more sophisticated and wisely words, but are the old and exhausted words nevertheless, disguised behind lavish constructions and scholarly titles – their work is thus more observable because it is screechy. When do we finally exhale our sighs and turn away from such a circus, having seen how bad of a performance it had given?

A mastermind is he who not just observes, as our good and many scholars have done and still do, but it is he who also asks: “what does this observation mean to the world and to life? What does it mean to those who lived hundreds of years ago, and to those arriving hundreds of years from now?” Yes – what does it say about existence, and what does it reveal and foretell? Only then do we begin to hear thought sing its many songs. To be able to reincarnate the world with new terms is not a work of true scholars, and this defiles the world and makes much of a deceiving genius, a genius that does nothing, a mere retracing of values and uttering of noise, albeit, with more style. And honestly, the atmosphere is dripping with much stylish noise already: books, politics, higher education, and everything in between. The universe looks at them for a second, and tries to restrain from laughter for eternity...

And so I arrive to the gates of this stronghold, barely crawling and torn, with my ears bleeding having heard much scholarly screeching. To all psychologists I have but one demand: for them to be philosophers as well; otherwise, they are merely vomiting a sickness that is already unpleasant to the sensible nose. Still, at the end of it all, really, there would not be masterminds if it were not to those who flood life with their scholarly idiocy: the insincere, the lazy, the contaminated in spirit – only against such a sheer and disgraceful of a background of scholars can we see and recognize the lovely and spirited scholar…much like it requires night, for us to observe the stars. But the stars are always there and that is the sole reason why the stars are the norm; as for the common people, the good and many, the scholars of the so-called – they are a waking and sleeping night, shapeshifters and clones, shallow and nearsighted; they are the norm only in numbers, statistics and samples – they fade and stumble, they are weak and overtaken by much nothingness, with too much noise that they proudly call “social life.” Such a feeblish breed, such a massy lacking, is and has become all too social to grow wings of its own, and so it is lustfully dependent, and suspicious of those who can fly. At least that much must be recognized…
Most teachers would have turned it back in simply because of the "problematic" preface...

...or, when I go a little overboard with the analogies and metaphors...

But such teachers, they are, in a minor part, the very "scholars" I am talking about, and that is my joke against them...
 
E

EricBess

Guest
Duke,

Were this a paper submitted as a "research" paper, or for a technical writing class, I would have a problem with it. Seeing as it is for a class on Ethics, I think it probably hits a bit too close. Bit ironic that...Anyway, it is very literary. The style is a bit cumbersome to read casually and, given that teachers have a lot of these papers to go through, you might lose marks there. But, then again, that's what your writing about in the first place, isn't it.

Suitably ironic. I hate catering to the lowest denomination. Fortunately, I was never so literary. Other than the fact that so much metaphor is hard to follow in general, I think you have a definitely solid style. Nice.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
I already don't get it; if this is about the immoralities of love, I don't see where the "scholars" come in on the preface.

And not having taken a philosophy class when I was at college, I'm not sure what style is expected. In comparison with papers I had to write for other humanities classes, this seems too "personal" or "journalistic/story-telling" ("And so I arrive at this..."). And sarcastic ("our dear scholars"), but you mentioned that already.

The ... at the end of the paragraph actually fits in with this style though, but like I said, it seems more a transcript of a conversation than a "paper" that I'm used to :)
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

Spiderman, I'll tell you why you don't "get it." See, if you were my professor, you would know me as the student who dislikes all scholarly work thus far because he feels that too much passion and spirit have been lost throughout, therefore, too much truth and sincerity has been overshadowed. I have expressed to many of my teachers my disliking of the psychologists and "scholars" who pretend that they had "invented" a new generation of whatever-ness. I have even openly told my philosophy teacher that he is a moron, that he is stupid, and that he likes to fool himself, just like many others (after hours of discussion, of course). He smiled and agreed wholeheartedly. That is what happens when someone is honest.
Spiderman:

...if this is about the immoralities of love, I don't see where the "scholars" come in on the preface.
Because I am referring to the "scholars" who "studied" love and "wrote" about it. And I do mention where the paper is heading, but only a keen eye can see:
Preface:

...what does this observation mean to the world and to life? What does it mean to those who lived hundreds of years ago, and to those arriving hundreds of years from now?” Yes – what does it say about existence, and what does it reveal and foretell?
And especially this, which sums up the entire paper perfectly, (even more especially, the bold part):
Preface:

But the stars are always there and that is the sole reason why the stars are the norm; as for the common people, the good and many, the scholars of the so-called – they are a waking and sleeping night, shapeshifters and clones, shallow and nearsighted; they are the norm only in numbers, statistics and samples – they fade and stumble, they are weak and overtaken by much nothingness, with too much noise that they proudly call “social life.” Such a feeblish breed, such a massy lacking, is and has become all too social to grow wings of its own, and so it is lustfully dependent, and suspicious of those who can fly. At least that much must be recognized
I don't know why, exactly, but I don't like writing so "obviously." Maybe because clearity tells you what to think. What I like is to see you thinking and wondering at just what in the world could that have meant. Maybe it is because you were exposed to many so-called scholarly writing, that you now think this writing is strange? :) But you see, every line you read above is carefully chosen - it has a meaning. There are no fillers.
Eric:

Were this a paper submitted as a "research" paper, or for a technical writing class, I would have a problem with it.
Well, am I not surprised! :) But this is the preface, so I did not include any actual research. It is the one time I actually have the freedom to do whatever I want. The actual paper, although contains much of the same style and sarcasm, it actually discusses the issues at hand and the research. In fact, the professor requested a 5-7 page paper - mine is 15 pages. The first 3 pages of the paper are deeply entwined with actual research; then, 3 pages to analyze how "love" has positively affected the social atmosphere (the "moral" side); 3 pages of complete and pure philosophy; 3 pages of the negative after-effects of love on humanity in general (the "immoral" side), and 3 pages that discusses the "Beyond Love" aspects, which does not contain much research but me just...wondering out load. Furthermore, he asked for at least 5 references - I have 9 well thought out and abused refrences. The paper is contaiminted with tons of quotes. And I hate quoting others because others do not know what they are talking about.

One more time to Spiderman: I don't actually have to mention love so as to be talking about love. You see, that is the kind of thing I cannot do - be specific. And come on! For God's sake! We are talking about teachers with PhDs and Masters! They can't handle this!?
Eric:

...given that teachers have a lot of these papers to go through...
And guess what? I am always the first student to turn in the papers - few weeks before the actual due date. In this case, I turned it in few months before the due date. It is due all the way in the finals...we are only in midterms now. I think 3 months of reading my silly ol'15 page paper is good enough, don't you? :)
 
D

DÛke

Guest
Oh, and before doing all the writing, I talked to the teacher and made him promise me (we even wrote the promise on his calendar), that I can, specifically: be as colorful as I want to be (without using curse words), and have the paper be as long as I want.

...but curse words? Why would I want to curse when there are more polite ways to be more so offensive? :D
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Hey, this is why I am more a math/computer guy than a humanities guy; I don't even pretend to understand this. That's why I need it spelled out :)

Also why I finished my humanities requirements at the liberal arts school I went to as fast as possible and with the bare minimum. :)
 
T

train

Guest
Spidey...

Do you remember the details of the proof that 1 + 1 does not = 2?...

I can't remember them...
 
E

EricBess

Guest
Try this:

Assume a = b.

Multiplying both sides by b:

ab = bb

Subtract aa from each side:

ab - aa = bb - aa

Factor:

a(b-a) = (b+a)(b-a) (difference of two squares)

cancel (b-a) from each side:

a = b+a

Since a=b, we replace:

a = a + a

a = 2a

cancel a:

1 = 2

QED
 
E

EricBess

Guest
Oh, and Spidey - of course it is wrong, but each step is based on accurate mathmatic principles. The trick, however, is to figure out why it is wrong.
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

Well, Eric, that is an easy one, isn't it? I have never seen that neat trick before...but let me take a "philosophical" stab at it:

...if we are to presuppose that a=b, than by all means, we must not go back and replace the b with an a simply because we would be playing with abstractions at that point. We would not replace 1 with 1, now would we? It seems like one big "wordgame" or, actually, "number-game."

All I know is that whatever "wrong" there is, it takes place in the "replacing" step, when you replaced the b with an a. :) And when you can do that, you basically can destroy all of math...many formulas, I would imagine, would falter by such reasoning...
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

Oh, and plus, a=2a can never really exist unless a=0, and therefore, b=0 as well. In this case, then, you are dealing with zeros, and much of the math is simply just "suggestions" thereafter, and not mathematical at all...

Wonderful trick...:)
 
Top