Best Paper I've Ever Seen

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
If the facts he puts forward are indeed true, this paper is not all that bad. Give him a penalty for not citing them. I think he could squeeze a D and avoid failure.

Facts in papers are there to back arguements. Good facts in the service of poor arguments are not a saving grace.

[Japher]

PP1 Thesis

Thesis Statement: "Spotted owls are stupid"
Topic Sentence: "They can’t live anywhere that isn’t hundreds of years old and untouched by human hands and they breed themselves into extinction by mating with a natural enemy and potential predator, the barred owl"

PP 2 Habitat

PP 3 Mating Habits and Adaptation/Evolution

PP 4 Conclusion

---

Looks good to me, despite all the general opinion, lack of supporting facts, use of swear words, general threats, misspellings, and insults to mentally handicap... I'd give a C to organization, a B for being argumentative, a F for lack of support, and an F for the lack of professionalism shown in the paper = D+!!!

[East Street Trader]

We will have to agree to differ, then, GePap.

I wish you the luck to avoid being dull while always supporting your well constructed arguments with well researched and excellently selected facts.

Also to avoid choosing teaching as a profession.

[SlowwHand]

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap
some choice quotes from the paper:

My point? The barred owl is not a little ***** like the spotted owl, and it can take a few loggers walking around here and there without keeling over and dying.

Massive exageration.

Its neither an 'exageration' (musta missed those U Chicago spelling B's eh?) nor an exaggeration, its an opinion, followed by uncited evidence why the author has such an opinion.

Fails to show why loggers are different from people,

Unless you've managed to convince beavers or some other animals to be loggers, then loggers does in fact refer to people!

unless he means the species is less likely to adapt to logging,

The meaning is pretty obvious. Why should the author be forced to write out every last word for the illiterate.

and thus he failt to show why it is necessary to log. He gives no moral valuations for why logging should occur-not even economic ones.

Why on earth should he do that? This is a scientific paper not one about economics or ethics. I'd shoot any reviewer of my articles who said something so stupid with a ball of their own **** (and I have figuratively speaking)

The barred owl is obviously the “fittest” of the two species. So why then are we trying to save an animal that is naturally being killed by a stronger, more adept species?

We do nothing to stop the barn owl from killing the spotted owl, only to minimize our interference with the process.

How do you know that? There are lots of cases where we interfere with natural selection in order to preserve one species from another.

Spotted owls, take note. You serve no purpose, I have a gun, and your feathers make a pretty neat hat.

Massive BAM about the owls "purpose"

By 'BAM' I assume you're not referring to the Iranian city?

Do you mean opinion? If so why not say that? There's lots of opinion in science; many pretend that it is not though.

Spotted owls are stupid. They can’t live anywhere that isn’t hundreds of years old and untouched by human hands and they breed themselves into extinction by mating with a natural enemy and potential predator, the barred owl. They are simply stupid, and out of all animals, they are quite possibly the ones most deserved of an untimely death.

The entire intro is one long BAM,

Ibid

has no topic sentence or thesis sentence. The thign that comes closets to this, the last one, is never backed up, since he only compares Spotted wols to barn owls and people. He does not bring up any other creatures. .

I agree that the writers style is rather 'free form'. Your comments remind me of my grade 12 english teacher who felt it necessary to tear apart poetry line by line - to look for 'deep hidden meanings'. Sometimes the total is greater than the sum of the parts.

EDIT: I didnt win any spelling B's either but at least I correct them when I spot em.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
PP1 Thesis

Thesis Statement: "Spotted owls are stupid"
Topic Sentence: "They can’t live anywhere that isn’t hundreds of years old and untouched by human hands and they breed themselves into extinction by mating with a natural enemy and potential predator, the barred owl"

Having a limited range and specific niche is not an arguement for being stupid. You can't breed yourself into extinction (unless he is talking about so grossly overpopulating the given area resources collapse and the species dies) that way. Unless Spotted Owls are raping barred owls, or barred owls refuse to nurse mixed chicks, the spotted owls still get to pass their genes, an obviously the barred owls find something useful in the pairings. He needs to present evidence to counter both the lines of argument I have presented.

Looks good to me, despite all the general opinion, lack of supporting facts, use of swear words, general threats, misspellings, and insults to mentally handicap... I'd give a C to organization, a B for being argumentative, a F for lack of support, and an F for the lack of professionalism shown in the paper = D+!!!

Man, you are an easy grader- lets blame grade inflation on YOU!

[GePap]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
We will have to agree to differ, then, GePap.

I wish you the luck to avoid being dull while always supporting your well constructed arguments with well researched and excellently selected facts.

Also to avoid choosing teaching as a profession.

I have already been a teacher, and I have had many Teachers are there to teach. NOT entertain. Whomever imparts the most facts and best methods by which to build knowledge is the best teacher, even if dull.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap


Facts in papers are there to back arguements. Good facts in the service of poor arguments are not a saving grace.

GePap, stob being a leftist reactionary.

What if he made a paper about the urgency of saving spotted owls? and supported it by demonstrating their numbers are decreasing, citing the hordes of evil forest-exploiting corporations ready to annihilate them?

He had an original point: the disappearance of spotted owls won't change anything, and it can be countered by the proliferation of a rival specy. How is that a poor argument? Invoking the laws of evolution to defend the idea that a specy is due anyway is not all that bad for an argument. It's probably even better than all those Green hacks who want to save animals because, well, because, ahem... "we have to".

Give that guy a D and let the thing go.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by GePap



If I saw someone post a paper on fluid dynamics, it could very well come from a creative writing class, NO?

Yes, IN THEORY it could be. Not by far even a reasonable assumption to make though.

IN making an unreasonable assumption, it is for you to come up with evidence.

A creative writing class would be a more reasonable assumption than a fluid dynamics class.

Clarification: Speaking here of the undergrad level, since it's obvious that's where the originally posted paper came from.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Its neither an 'exageration' (musta missed those U Chicago spelling B's eh?) nor an exaggeration, its an opinion, followed by uncited evidence why the author has such an opinion.

to the first dig (get with the program old man).

As for the second part, it is tied to your next worthwhile line:

The meaning is pretty obvious. Why should the author be forced to write out every last word for the illiterate.

The illiterate would never be a possible audience for an essay, 1. Second, it is clear that to say "they drop dead i loggers walk around" is an exaggeration-that he did it for comedic value or emphasis does not matter, and he should not have done it period.

Why on earth should he do that? This is a scientific paper not one about economics or ethics. I'd shoot any reviewer of my articlaes who said something so stupid with a ball of their own **** (and I have figuratively speaking)

He has no plae then to be making value judgements if that is the type of paper.

How do you know that? There are lots of cases where we interfere with natural selection in order to preserve one species from another.

Which is irrelevant unless he can show that is the case HERE in this case, since he is not writing about protecting species in general (given it seems he only hates the "stupid ones").

I agree that the writers style is rather 'free form'. You're comments remind me of my grade 12 english teacher who felt it necessary to tear apart poetry line by line - to look for 'deep hidden meanings'. Sometimes the total is greater than the sum of the parts.

If we follow the line this is a science paper, which is most liekly is, comparisons to poetry are meaningless.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Solomwi


A creative writing class would be a more reasonable assumption than a fluid dynamics class.

No, it would not, if the paper is all about fluid dynamics.

[Solomwi]

Yes, it would, since fluid dynamics classes at that level rarely, if ever, require papers.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


GePap, stob being a leftist reactionary.

What if he made a paper about the urgency of saving spotted owls? and supported it by demonstrating their numbers are decreasing, citing the hordes of evil forest-exploiting corporations ready to annihilate them?

He had an original point: the disappearance of spotted owls won't change anything, and it can be countered by the proliferation of a rival specy. How is that a poor argument? Invoking the laws of evolution to defend the idea that a specy is due anyway is not all that bad for an argument. It's probably even better than all those Green hacks who want to save animals because, well, because, ahem... "we have to".

Give that guy a D and let the thing go.

this is a poor paper not becuase of what ideological slant he takes, but becuase it does not meet the standards of a good academic essay period. To grade an academic paper based on anything other than what a good academic paper is is simply wrong. If standing up for integrity in grading in our universities is being a "left wing reactionary", then GOOD.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Solomwi
Yes, it would, since fluid dynamics classes at that level rarely, if ever, require papers.

It would still be more reasonable since unless the class was full of physicists and taught by a physicist what basis would a writing teacher use to grade papers on fluid dynamics?

[Q Classic]

don't you think you guys are taking this ****e too seriously ?