Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What Christian society did this? I have been studying history, particularly European history for over 20 years and have never heard of a Christian society that practiced this custom. If you are going to make an outlandish claim like that you should probably back it up with some kind of citation. That definitely does not fall into the category of common knowledge.
It wouldn't matter Scout, Medieval Christians were probably too busy chasing witches, heretics, and running from the bubonic plague to have the time to kill their babies.
Don't forget Retsina and Ouzo. Retsina is one of the nastiest things I ever drank. The only thing nastier I can think of is Bosnian Rakija which is a kind of Plum schnaps. Rakija can probably take the paint off the space shuttle, it can definitely take out the lining of your stomach.
You must of been going through some rough times to be drinking stuff like that LOL.
Scout: Ronald Reagan would be a moderate in Europe and so would Jimmy Carter. They would belong to the same party by your definition.Phid: Accepting mediocrity and conformity is not my ideal. George Washington wouldn't be elected today even though most people pay homage to him as a great leader and founding father. He would be labeled isolationist, elitist, and racist. Ironic isn't it?
I actually agree with 90% of what you are saying here...
I'm guessing the 10% you differ on is the "significant difference between the two." I concede they have significant philosophical differences (at least in what they are saying), but if you were European and monitoring this election, you would hardly be able to differentiate between the two. Europeans are used to elections that offer a radical and a reactionary for choices. We hardly get that here because both parties rush headlong to the political center in an effort to grab as many undecided/swing voters as they can. Parliamentary politics is a different animal from what we're used to. I don't think I could stomach a parliamentary setup. I want a candidate that can appeal to the broadest group of voters, but without compromising his core values and beliefs...someone who exhibits leadership qualities, and succinctly defines what he plans to do in such a way that makes me feel secure. I get no feelings of security from Romney or Obama. Both will do harm to this country if elected. One might be a little more dangerous than the other, but no matter who wins, neither will be able to pull America out of its decline.
I would have to disagree. If my argument is based on the application of someone else's principles, I think it can be entirely suitable to make a summary of the other's work before I analyze it. I would not stretch out the summary too long, though. In footnotes I would put information which does not work well in the main argument because it is periphery.I think some of these issues have to do with style, and style can differ from person to person.
There may be certain rare instances where you might need to, but if there is a way around it, you should structure the paper differently. Most of the summation can be done in a footnote. We're talking about small papers here (under 20 pages) so what ski is talking about would really take up too much valuable typing space. Any summary over two pages would kill the effectiveness of the paper (by effectiveness I mean showing the professor one can build one's own argument rather than regurgitating someone else's). I would have to see what ski plans to do, but I will say this, if there is any part of the summary that is common knowledge, that doesn't need to be cited. Anything specific, however, must be cited.
The problem for Romney is he is just another GOP in the line of McCain and Bush and cannot differentiate himself as something new. He can't claim he's not a part of the establishment and he hasn't offered anything bold for a campaign platform. Finally, Obama has more charisma and personality than Romney and believe it or not, that wins a lot of voters. Unless Romney does get serious he is going to lose to Obama and soundly I fear; not that there is any significant difference between the two, but I digress…..
It's a bad idea to do summaries in the body of the paper. At most use long quotes and cite individually from the pages the quotes come from. You're just wasting space in your paper that should be dedicated to your individual argument. I'm pretty sure the professor would frown on this practice anyway so I wouldn't do it to be safe.
The Spitfire was a very solid plane. The P47 was obviously superior, but by then designs were rapidly changing.
