Revising a Paper

After skimming through the reading, it seems apparent that the idea is to maintain one’s topic and voice while spreading a bit of information about, then making sure it’s organized and centralized well. Your topic/side of an argument can easily become drowned and lost once you start laying down all the facts you’ve found, so Ballinger asks that the writer take another look or two to ensure everything is as it should be. Having a careful balance of information and your own opinions is key as well. Also, make sure not to leave the information hanging in the breeze with no support. Picking apart your paper (or slicing it up with scissors) to find the core of the paragraph and the bits you don’t really like is also helpful. Above all though, one must make sure the paper is theirs. Don’t use others words to show what your opinion is.

All of these ideas are great reminders of what you should be thinking about when revising. Keeping a steady flow of info to back up your statements makes for a solid opinion, and when combined with a good focus, makes a wonderful paper. Often I leave some paragraphs devoid of any backup, whilst others are stuffed so full of quotes and statistics that it’s a wonder it doesn’t seep through the paper. Another thing which I intend to take to heart is the re-researching to find a few more useful sources.

about revising

Revising is re-seeing. Re-seaching comes too!
It's hard for me to re-see things that I made -up myself. Peer editing helps a lot. Most of the time it's the way I form my ideas. it might seem rational to me but to others there seems like there's spots and gaps open lacking information. Consitant flow of facts ideas can be tricky too. Like, trying to incorporate all our required sources and re-wording them to suit our individual voice.
I liked the metaphor of writing your opinion like an fight. You need to keep your voice more prominant than the voice of your sources; fight for your voice!

OP-ED on Narc-book

Everyone I know my age is turning narcissistic. Our attitudes, beliefs, ethics, ideals, personalities and standards are all different from our grandmothers and grandfathers in their prime days. We value our own goals over goals of other groups, political parties and over God. Young people are relating everything down to “Yah, so what? And how is that going to benefit me?” Psychologist Jean Twenge explains in her book “Generation Me”, that these young people were raised with the idea of self-esteem being more important than achievement, which has caused them to place the self above all else. Modern schooling has instilled the idea in us that we can be all that we want to be. We think we are all special and deserve everything.
Technology must always follow suite to a culture. That’s why Facebook was invented and has accumulated so much popularity among users. Facebook is a spectacle of self-promotion! Facebook statistics say the largest age demographic is between 18 and 25. Facebook, alike other social media sites such as MySpace, amuses us and caters to our narcissistic values. We can make our own ‘special’ profiles and use the site to revolve around your favorite person, you! The profile picture usually shows the most You can show everyone how cute, popular and fun you are in your many photo albums of “last weekend” but it’s renamed to something cooler. Some of your pseudo-friends will click the “like button” and openly like your status, picture, or whatever kind of update you have online. It might give you a sense of pride, respect caring, or admiration. As if we are entitled to be little celebrities. We think we deserve the admiration; we narcissists have a grandiose self, as diagnosed in DSM-4. Facebook fosters our narcissism.
Facebook is some sort of result rather than the cause of narcissism. We were accumulating narcissistic traits as a culture trend before the Facebook explosion. In 1979, Christopher Lasch published “The Culture of Narcissism”. London reviews say he revised the Freud concept of the psyche. Instead of explaining the way in which society works from the personality (as Freud did), Lasch argued that social changes (like the adoption of Facebook) brought about change in personalities. Lasch questioned the nature of the society that produces the narcissistic type of personality as a dominant type of personality. He is saying the nature of the society was already changed because it had been changing and heading toward narcissism in the early twentieth century. New methods of schooling, instilling self-esteem into children, and enabling people to be successfully self-sufficient helped the change. I just think Facebook enables us in our continuation of social evolution.
John Timpane of the Philadelphia Inquirer thinks that Facebook confessions could be more of a social shift than narcissism. He says the Facebook generation “assumes they have an audience": They have a mental image of a large group of people interested in postings such as "25 Random Things." Part of their identity rests on an invisible entourage that accompanies them everywhere. Facebookers think they have their own audience and are little celebrities in a way. I think that's alright, it shouldn't be considered a psychological disorder if it doesn't affect your daily life. Most people are incorporating it just fine; they like it, find it helpful in their busy lives to connect to people when they feel like it. This new interactive technology of online social media sites are beneficial to this generation of self-esteemed, entitled, impatient and don't-want-to-be-bored kids.

Gaming has become part of some peoples everyday life and the media only encourages it more. The Playstation 3 commercials maybe funny but they are there to grab your attention and to make you think about it for long periods of time. You may not notice it until you are seeing it again with your friends and are telling them how funny it is. Then you choose to ask them questions and do some research on the item itself. Media is a bid influence on gaming but it alone doesn’t lead to an obsession or an “addiction” for video gaming. The only one responsible for that is the player and in some cases the parent.
In five minutes of walking down the toy aisles in a store you could easily find the aisle with the toy electronics. If accompanied by a child you’ld find out what is cool and not. There are four education gaming systems that target children between the ages of three to ten. Even with four systems, combined there are 30 or more games for them. Parents encourage this kind of gaming but then as they get older they think other gaming systems are okay.
Even with the parent’s permission to play games kids now have free reign and parents slowly start to agree with what the kid wants. It is only after the kid has been playing for multiple hours on end that they think something is wrong. What do they look at first… the internet. There is no medical term as video gaming addiction but parents read articles from other parents who have had children with similar problems and they say that IT IS video game addiction.
Kids learn to use things around them to cope with other thing and video games are readily available to solve all your problems…for the time being. Parents don’t tend to see that their child has a problem, so if there is nothing wrong then don’t fix it.

Colton Duby

Nov. 12, 2009

Response to

Did you know that I’m a trained assassin? Yes, it’s true. Having played video games in which the protagonist I play stars as a super soldier-esque individual, I am skilled in various forms of combat, can shoot a pigeon from over a mile away, and know that checking the radar which hovers above me will undoubtedly reveal the location of my aggressors. And all of this thanks to video games.

If this is the line of thought one is following, they should stop before they hurt themselves. Video games may show a person how to do something, but that doesn’t mean you are always capable of doing said thing. I have seen people back-flip off walls, but that does not mean I myself can do such a thing. I have piloted a fighter jet in games, but this does not qualify me to fly in a real jet, and any attempt to make me do so would probably result in a lot of wreckage and my death.

So why do some select people see video games as training tools for murderers? By that logic, playing the playground game of Cops and Robbers is a child styled assassin training game. Playing hide and seek is training for how to find hidden enemies and how to avoid being seen, not simple child’s play! Squirt gun fights and water-balloon battles? Obviously children learning military tactics, how to fire weapons and honing their grenade throwing skills.

“But, there’s a huge difference!” I hear from across the room, “Violent games have blood!” Yes, yes they do. And so does real life! Haven’t you cut yourself before? I’d hope you bled. If not, I’m informing the FBI you’re not of this world. And yes, it is a paltry excuse, but it’s better than people sprouting flowers from a gaping wound. Why better you ask? While it may draw some to the game, it pushes the younger audience away via parents. “What about overly-excessive gore?” Ah, your counter I see. Well, on that topic, I do believe there is a limit to which the level of gore is acceptable. When oceans of blood poor from a paper-cut, the game probably needs a different thing to pull crowds in rather than using excessive violence as a sort of twisted art style. It does nothing good either to provide the person with endless tries and nothing challenging, as the gameplay will become dull and monotonous, which will cause a person to be desensitized to the violence. This is especially true among the younger audiences. The ESRB ratings may not always be spot on, but they are there for a reason.

So my final consensus on whether or not violent games make people killers? No, they do not. While emotion is sparked when playing violent games, which leads to desensitization, and aggressiveness may spike, these two things alone do not make someone into a killer. What’s more, aggression can be maintained or lowered through hundreds of different methods. So, what argument have you now, oh gore-in-game seekers? Your first thrust has fallen short, and I parried the blow before delivering my riposte. Your move, violent video game critics.

CR:RR

Presenting an argument is never an easy task, you must appear informed, enthusiastic, and most of all, correct. If you fulfill the first two but fail in your argument then you have totally failed, but if you succeed at the latter and fail at the first then not all is lost. Thus we need to correctly show our readers that our point is the correct point. "They say, I say" is a good take on how to do that. In this reading they give lots of points on how to correctly show the opposition to your argument and then good ways to counter that using the tone and stance of your writing. One of the main points to note in this is piece of writing are the different "templates" that are written so that you can more accurately convey what you are writing.
If this piece of writing is taken into context with what Orwell said (to make these commonplace phrases your own) then you can quickly create a new list that is more suited to your argument. This will allow you to write a much more in-depth paper and much more interesting one at that.

CR Response: Pg 169-174, 181-193

Once more we depart into the lands of the Curious Researcher, in search of knowledge which will aid in our plight of constructing a good paper. And lo’! We seem to have stumbled upon that very thing, thanks to our professor’s guidance. Rather than continue on as if I were writing a fantasy novel though, I believe it’s time to discuss what I’ve discovered.

Procrastination is the first topic which is looked at. Many students are familiar with this, as they are active contributors to the problem. Now while this does work sometimes for some people, one could probably produce a better paper by starting earlier on, as you have time to develop ideas and make corrections. This is especially important when one wants to strengthen an argument by presenting the other side of a topic. Often the other side is presented and dismissed without much reason when the writer is short on time, and it makes for a very fragile argument when one cannot defend their position. I often catch myself making choices which lead to me procrastinating, and as the target of this point, I feel Bruce is correct on all counts.

The next bit o’ text tells us about how to personalize an essay, as well as a few ideas on how to think up an intro. A question, comparison/contrast or a quote are all excellent ways to begin, but one needs to make sure they don’t generalize. I often do as Ballinger does and create a few different introductions, than find which one I prefer and attempt to perfect it. Seems we two are similar in that respect, but the way in which we write is differentiated by how we choose to personalize our paper.

Personalizing a paper, as Ballinger states, is deciding on whether or not to use “I”. Using this letter as a standalone must be done cautiously, as overuse can make the paper seem egotistical. The use of “I think/believe/feel that…” also makes the essay seem to revolve around you, though it is unlikely you’re the main topic of the discussion taking place within the text. Voice is also a key part to personalizing a paper, as it will change in order to hold a higher appeal to your expected audience. One does not want to send a letter to a boss and write it as if one was writing to a best friend.

All of Mr. Ballinger’s ideas are sure to prove helpful in writing, namely with the introduction as it is often the most difficult bit of an essay to write; tied with the conclusion I would say. Bringing up Bruce’s thoughts on procrastination a week before it’s due was more than likely a tactful move by the English 102 professor to serve as a reminder of how much time remains. It has certainly forced my hands to concoct an intro. I’ll be sure to get right to work with my remaining time…as soon as I finish this sandwitch.

Response to "They Say, I Say"

I now know what this title means. What "they say" is what the writer is responding to; the critics of the argument trying to be proved. What "I say" is what I, the writer, says.

What I say and what "they say" needs to be in the right order too. My argument has to be a response to something of course, and a paper needs to be focused on replying to, and respectfully disagreeing with that side of the argument, giving valid reasons why what I say is the better and more valid opinion. I think I'm going to stuggle a bit with this in my introduction. I have never really thought about opening an argumentative essay with anything contradicting. Perhaps I will just put it in such words that will lead the reader into the right frame of mind with some questions that are unanswered for a short bit before divulging the details. The reader might wonder if it is possible of my opinion to be proved, then I will blast them with evidence they cannot deny and thus, my argument will be won.
Starting a essay is very important in order to "speak out" to the reader and grab their attention, make the argument as well as my statement on it clear. Perhaps I will start off with an anecdote about how Facebook/Twitter/MySpace is ruining the lives of users and keeping them from being productive people. Yes, that may be true when people are using those sites as wastes of time, but could it also be a good way to waste time? Or maybe if I feel like taking the other stance I could say that Facebook/Twitter/Myspace is a harmless internet site and it's just fun and everyone else thinks that it's fun and good, but it is in fact that... yahda-yahda-yahda, it's got more playing on our minds than meets the eye... or screen. Either way, I am still not sure of how I am going to start off my paper, and which way to best argue my ideas with what information I have to back it up on. This article is still giving me ideas. The templates are great!
Going into expansive detail will have to wait for the body of the paper. No one wants to read long details in the opening bit, they just want to get the jist to see if they are interested. A possible twist could grip the readers in suspense and leave then wanting to read the end of it.

Response to Politics and the English Language

Orwell is such a famous writer, works such as Nineteen Eighty Four and Animal Farm will forever ring throughout time as classics, unless of course those stories actually come true. He coined the words and phrases like Big Brother, doublethink, newspeak, and others. It is only rather fitting that he comment on the type of vague ideas that he himself wrote about. In Politics in the English Language Orwell talks about the vagueness of our very own language and then sets up some rules for creating better writing that hasn’t been duped up with common phrases.

In his argument Orwell states that metaphors have become stale and have lost their meaning because nobody even understands the word picture anymore. A metaphor should bring a mental image to somebody’s head, not the other way around. In my lifetime alone is the phrase “Google it” is becoming useless. It is no longer synonymous with Google. While some people perhaps will still use Google, the phrase now more or less means “Look it up”. It doesn’t have to be Google and we see this type of phrase we don’t necessarily associate it with Google anymore. This only proves Orwell’s point about the English language becoming stale.

“It is easier -- even quicker, once you have the habit -- to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think.” We may laugh at this and call it absurd but it is a personification of the English language. All people regardless of who they are do this. We all run on social and verbal scripts that we don’t even have to think about. This is most evident when somebody greets you or tells you to “have a nice day”. We do not even begin to think about the response, instead we simply respond with a pre-determined script from both behavior and langage by saying something like “Pretty good, how about yourself?” or “you too”.

In fact, this is only made all the more evident when something is out of place. Take for instance if you are getting on a flight (as I once watched a friend do) and your standing back at security tells you to “have a great flight” and you respond automatically with the phrase “you too!” (as I once did). When it comes down to it, Orwell creates a simple, if not rather ironic, set of rules for people when speaking English. But even more so, he creates a “beware of” list. By showing the phrases for their true meaning he tears off the white washed mask that politics hide behind to show the more grotesque one that lays beneath it.

Response to "Politics and the English Language"

Whilst reading through Orwell’s piece, I soon found that I was contributing slightly to this stretching and skewing of the English language. Luckily it would seem I’m not alone, as college professors are making as many or more errors as me, and while that softens the blow to me, it also shows how badly we’ve managed to morph simple words into drawn out phrases.

Politics are prime pickings for finding such phrases. It seems it’s now a necessity to use as many large and complex words as possible to describe ones position on something. No longer does one simply state their opinion on something. You teeter on the edge of decisiveness, but do not under any circumstance actually take a step into it. If one does, they make sure to cloak it under so many words -often meaning things other than what they really mean- that it’s impossible to discern if they are indeed for or against something.

Taking this into consideration when writing is vital to a successful paper. If people are forced to re-read things simply so they understand a simple concept, it becomes boring and puts the reader off. One also wants to make sure their writing expresses ideas clearly. The writer must also be wary to keep things brief and to the point so the reader is not lost in over-abundant details. The six rules Orwell provides are great things to look for when looking over a paper, as I’m sure people other than me and some professors tend to drag things out longer than they should be.

Response to "Politics and the English Language"

I think when people write poorly, it's because they don't have it in mind that the writing actually needs to be read and comprehended in the end. The writer might be attempting to seem smarter by using more complex words and phrases or metaphors, but because he/she doesn't know the true meaning of them, he/she cannot use them correctly and therefore creates a muddle of words and partially-formed thoughts. Vagueness will never be persuasive. Having vague statements will not make a good argument in our unit 2a paper.
Using meaningless words will most-likely confuse the reader from your main focus, and can easily lead them astray in your process of ideas through the paper. Using "operators or verbal false limbs" are only extra words and will not help unless the writer is trying to meet a specific word count, otherwise unproductive. Other meaningless additions are words of a different language only trying to add airs "of culture and elegance". I think if you are trying to provide elegance shows of culture in your writing you should write it down in English words so that the general audience can understand.
Overused phrases and metaphors are boring, unoriginal and are not given much thought anymore. If you can come up with an interesting new metaphor, the reader might actually pause and think to find a relation between the imagery it creates and the topic you are elaborating on.
It is so important to write consciously.
Overall, writing is not like speaking. Because the reader will not necessarily put emphasis on words that you, the writer, have, the main points will come across differently and most likely vague or in disarray. I find that when I listen to political speeches, I hardly ever understand or get anything out of them. Politicians do use mumbo-jumbo words to make them seem like they know hat they are doing and that you should trust them, though what they are doing is higher that your comprehension level, so it's like they don't even bother trying to tell you (like they have a plan anyway, haha).
When editing my writing, I personally, need to remind myself to write like I mean it, and be able to describe what I am saying in other words, or else my first writing won't be understood. The reader can't read your mind, only your words.

Crafting an Argument

Mr. Ballinger's bit on "Writing and Argument" informs us on what the title so blatantly specifies. How to "build an argument," as Bruce put it. He talks about how to form a proper opinion and through analyzation, refine or create a new claim, as well as what you should have to make sure your claim is properly supported. This information could prove quite valuable in writing an op-ed or persuasive paper, which subsequently is exactly what he continues to talk about. Through what I could decipher, Ballinger states that op-ed's generally have a bit friendlier tone, perhaps even a slight bit tounge-in-cheek in some scenarios. Later, he cues us in on a few things we should be wary of in our arguements, such as an appeal to popularity. Just because a lot of people think something is the best, that is not always the case.
As our class is currently in the process of writing a persuasive paper (At least, we SHOULD be...), and will be writing up an op-ed soon after, the wisdom of Bruce Ballinger will come in handy. Whether it be his helpful outline for building a nice opinion or provinding insight into what exactly makes an arguement, this short paper could prove invaluable as an excellent source of refrence. Page 14 even has a few links to boards where you can work to hone down your claim into a fine point to take a stab at solving an arguement.

Response to "Writing an Argument"

This gave great ideas and tips on how to write, set-up, research and organize argument papers and op-eds. It gave me better descriptions of an op-ed in context of who writes them, for what reasons and who they are read by. From this I will have a better idea of what I am aiming for when I put together my op-ed. It needs to be fairly short, very persuasive, well reasoned, for a large audience and display that I truly care about the topic. I need to make an “intellectual inquiry” in a game of attack, but not war; I will respectfully disagree with conflicts of my interest. My view will have a good reason to matter to the audience and it will invite responses. The near end of the reading gave excellent reflection questions for self and peer editors.
I think that since arguing in the U.S. culture is so open and deemed as “healthy expressions of commitment and caring” that it is good to argue and share your ideas and opinions. Arguing forces us to test our ideas against evidence or find a new way of thinking about the topic. It is intriguing to find out that arguing is a process of discovery, and “academic argument is one of the key means of making new knowledge”. You must show what is convincing you to take your side of the argument so strongly; match wit and knowledge, find flaws in the opposing sides’ faulty reasoning and deny indefensible claims. To impose the opinion on the reader, the arguer will use an evaluation of the topic with an emphasis on analysis will present your idea, and the reader will suspend judgment and withhold questions until the end, when they will have a discovery. It gave me the idea that imagination will help us come to appreciate new complexities and discoveries if we have open minds and willingness to explore our own opinions and question our state of mind.
I liked the example of the claim that Rob is a narcissist because I am going to talk about narcissism in my argument too. I learned I need to state “what definition of narcissism provides the basis for the claim about Rob, including the behaviors of a narcissist”.
This reading also gave me a few more research tools to use. Sites like infoplease, CIA World Factbook and American Factfinder may be one of my sources. One thing I need to make sure I do for my argument paper is state why anything I write about matters. I need to relate it to what is at stake. As for how I will explain, I will try to answer “what do you believe is true if your claims from evidence are valid”. I will look out for any “logical fallacy” used in my paper, and use this reading as a little checklist for reviewing my argument and making it stronger.

hi

I'm Jasmine and I'm very tired today. Sorry if I start yawning a lot.

We have monorail cat. Your arguement is invalid.

my first blog EVER!

Hey everybody,
Glad to be part of this fun blog!
Go gamers and online socializers!

Hi Online Junkies! Welcome to your blog....

Welcome New Bloggers

This is a point of interest for the group Online Junkies
This group is made up of :

• Jared Carver - World of Warcraft Players
• Colton Duby - Gamers (General)
• Christine Raininger - Social Networking Sites
• Jasmine Bates - Gamers (General)

We hope that you enjoy our many postings