TheTestTube.com - View Single Post

Mike · 01-22-2005, 02:54 AM

[preface to this first paragraph: I didn't bother reading the introduction to the post until after I read this... and I could immediately tell that your conversation was fake. I'm not going to remove this because you can use it to revise the conversation and make it sound more realistic. After writing it, I was rereading the post, and realized that you admit that the conversation was 'never implemented')

Part of me believes that this conversation never took place, other than in the impecably timed arguments that one has in their own mind, puting themselves in a situation, fighting the odds, and coming out victorious and proud... while everybody else is stunned. This, to me, seems evident in how you try to make up for the inhuman nature of the conversation by making a point to humanize the conversation through your teacher's speach impediment. I really wonder, and actually doubt, that this conversation ever took place between the two of you, especially the way that you portray it. This is no offense to you, people do this all the time, especially in papers, but I don't know what you're looking for in posting it ... except for us to think that you ... defeated somebody, or something.

The rest of me obviously disagrees with your opinion on Christianity, and while I think ... pretty much all of it ... is dumbing down something to prove a point, if this paper were graded by somebody who wasn't looking for literary meanderings and seven word sentences that do little to inform, but a lot to 'grab attention', you'd probably fail the paper. It jumps from point to point with little cohesion (though, I think you do that on purpose--but... if this were evaluated in any sort of academia, it wouldn't be recieved well). Your small points aren't true, and the thesis of the paper, that which, I guess, deals with the conflict between Evolution/Darwin and Christianity/Religion isn't true anymore, and hasn't really been true for about 35 years.

If I were a professor, grading this, I'd have you write it over because it's missing everything. Don't take this personally, take it as an attempt to reanalyze this paper and maybe concentrate more on substance, as opposed to just sentences.

01-22-2005, 02:54 AM	#2
Mike Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 489	[preface to this first paragraph: I didn't bother reading the introduction to the post until after I read this... and I could immediately tell that your conversation was fake. I'm not going to remove this because you can use it to revise the conversation and make it sound more realistic. After writing it, I was rereading the post, and realized that you admit that the conversation was 'never implemented') Part of me believes that this conversation never took place, other than in the impecably timed arguments that one has in their own mind, puting themselves in a situation, fighting the odds, and coming out victorious and proud... while everybody else is stunned. This, to me, seems evident in how you try to make up for the inhuman nature of the conversation by making a point to humanize the conversation through your teacher's speach impediment. I really wonder, and actually doubt, that this conversation ever took place between the two of you, especially the way that you portray it. This is no offense to you, people do this all the time, especially in papers, but I don't know what you're looking for in posting it ... except for us to think that you ... defeated somebody, or something. The rest of me obviously disagrees with your opinion on Christianity, and while I think ... pretty much all of it ... is dumbing down something to prove a point, if this paper were graded by somebody who wasn't looking for literary meanderings and seven word sentences that do little to inform, but a lot to 'grab attention', you'd probably fail the paper. It jumps from point to point with little cohesion (though, I think you do that on purpose--but... if this were evaluated in any sort of academia, it wouldn't be recieved well). Your small points aren't true, and the thesis of the paper, that which, I guess, deals with the conflict between Evolution/Darwin and Christianity/Religion isn't true anymore, and hasn't really been true for about 35 years. If I were a professor, grading this, I'd have you write it over because it's missing everything. Don't take this personally, take it as an attempt to reanalyze this paper and maybe concentrate more on substance, as opposed to just sentences.