Question of the Week, Oct. 29, 2008

This situation is very similar to the way we write. We often know little in depth information about a subject before embarking on the journey of writing a paper about it. So, we might see or read something that interests us (overhearing the conversation), but we need more information about it. The sources that we use are often not the first to think actively about this topic, there have probably been numerous discussions or works written about the topic earlier, providing some background information. Once we learn more about the subject, we undoubtedly start to form our own opinions and views about it, which often get shown/exhibited in our writing. Others read this writing of ours and then form their own opinions about it, causing a furthering of the discussion. When we are done writing and people stop reading our paper, the discussion continues with new people until it is no longer relevant or to the end of time. This is a kind of cyclical knowledge. I found Burke's way of portraying this situation very interesting; I had never thought about it like that before.

Question of the Week, Oct. 22, 2008

This article was very interesting!! I felt that it was totally true for me. I have found that my "reading" on the web is more of a skimming for important words and points. I feel that it is harder to concentrate when reading on the web because of sidebars and other page features, as well as being harder on the eyes than just reading from a book. It also has a much less formal feel than reading from a book. Online reading is probably hurting today's generation in that it is teaching them to read in a very haphazard, unproductive way. I personally find it easier, more interesting, and much more productive to read from a paper source. The move to digitize learning is what should be slowed down. Everything is so fast paced and rushed; we have no chance to sit down and learn/observe. Online reading is only hurting us more.

Question of the week, Oct. 15, 2008

Now that the UL unit is drawing to a close, I can say that I have learned what sources to trust and which to be careful and wary of. In order to tell if something is true, I must investigate the source and obtain all possible supporting information and possibly other similar stories. I can then compare sources and stories to see how they line up and think about the plausibility of these various tales that I hear. If the story comes from a first-hand witness, there is a greater sense of truthfulness than if it came through a grapevine of people. The internet, even if the author says that they are an eyewitness, is not a totally trustworthy source of information considering anyone can say pretty much anything they want to, without having any checks on it.

Question of the Week, Oct. 8, 2008

That video was interesting, to say the least. I could write pages about what the author of the paper did wrong, aside from accepting a contract to write someone else's English paper. He did everything opposite of the right thing to do when writing an English paper! First of all, even if the topic is awful, think of something positive. In his case, he could concentrate on getting it done well so that he could play video games or whatever. Second, he was way too informal in his writing. His writing was also very generalized and had no true, hard facts. I think that the point of showing us this is to make light of how we write our papers, and show us in an exaggerated form how ridiculous our writing is sometimes!