English is a complete pile of utter bollocks.

[Deffeh]

Agree.

[Leshy]

Disagree.

[Embroglio]

There went my motivation to go to college again.

[Deffeh]

Your only option was agree. Like "Discuss.", but less open.

[Dante Hicks]

I've no idea why anyone would choose it as a degree subject.

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I've no idea why anyone would choose it as a degree subject.

How about if they were a complete moron, who wasnt any good at any other subject, and didnt care what they did so long as they were in uni?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

How about if they were a complete moron, who wasnt any good at any other subject, and didnt care what they did so long as they were in uni?

That's what philosophy or sociology are for, surely?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

That's what philosophy or sociology are for, surely?

Sociology is for sleeping. Now that's where I'm a viking!








PS I like english, I even like some modern english lit but for ****s sake deffeh what were you thinking?

[Deffeh]

Never had those choices in school.

Besides, i did like English once. Unfortunately, the english degree course is a creativity stifling unimaginative pile of crap.

Listen to this

Q.7
'That is not what i meant at all,/ That is not it at all.'
Write an alternative account of the love song of J Alfred Prufrock from the point of view of one of the women whose arms are 'braceleted white and bare' in the poem. This should be in prose; your version should relate to the original by picking up several specific references from it and working them into your account. It should not just mirror Eliot's poem all the same, but should look to add something of its own. Questions to resolve before starting include what class these women are, and in what period?

That pile of shit is what they call a "creative writing" option. Creative writing my ****ing ass, thats surely "restrictive writing". Im learning absolutely **** all from this Pretentious wank course, and thats what they serve me up to try and be creative with.

[JonnyBGood]

I'm sorry but ahahahahahahahahaha.











I'm dreading what my sociology essay titles will be though. "Write a 20 page exposition of why Marx was great."

[Dante Hicks]

Most degree courses seem to stifle creativity, although perhaps not to that extent. I still bemoan the fact that the study of political philosophy is massively focussed on studying other people's ideas, or worse what other people think of someone else ideas.

[Deffeh]

It really is unbelievably bad. What makes it worse is my tutor is King Pretence from Twatsville.

Him : "What does this mean, when it says they had a roof but no ceiling?"
Pretentious git in my class : "I feel it means they arent afraid of who they are, being who they are, and that it shows an out complexity plagued with the paradoxes of mankind"
Him : "Yes, very good, but i would also say it signifies the raw emotion bubbling over in the house, the desires and hidden agendas"


And im sitting there, thinking, what the **** - how the **** can someone as shit as you get a job

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Most degree courses seem to stifle creativity, although perhaps not to that extent. I still bemoan the fact that the study of political philosophy is massively focussed on studying other people's ideas, or worse what other people think of someone else ideas.

Philosophy (academic) is nearly as bad. I found a critical critique of a commentary on Russell's interpretation of Marx's response to Kant's influence on Hegel*. Political science is pretty neat so far as regards actually talking about ideas in general rather than some random gobshite's take on something nobody cares about. Sociology on the other hand is a continual mental masturbation over various sociologists and what they happened to say one day while they were delirious in between breakfast and brunch.








*Okay, I actually didn't, but it conveys my point pretty well.









PS Tomorrow in the library I'm going to ask if they have it though.

[Dante Hicks]

My presentation topic for my class in two weeks is "How would you reform the welfare state?".

I'm going to try and slip "armed rule of the working class" somehow, although I'm not exactly sure how.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Him : "What does this mean, when it says they had a roof but no ceiling?"

It means that the outside influence them but they couldn't influence anything outside them. A roof being seen from the outside, the ceiling from the inside. Or it means the poet's a ****ing cretin. Poetry's nice and all but just blurting out random things that pop into your head and sound intellectual is gay.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Him : "What does this mean, when it says they had a roof but no ceiling?"

they're too poor for proper construction works?

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

How about if they were a complete moron, who wasnt any good at any other subject, and didnt care what they did so long as they were in uni?

Media studies

Originally Posted by Deffeh

"What does this mean, when it says they had a roof but no ceiling?"

They live in a two story building?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

"What does this mean, when it says they had a roof but no ceiling?"

They live in a nice converted barn.

It probably has some lovely exposed beams as well.

[W]

Why is it won't and not willn't is my question.

[Embroglio]

Oh dear, I wanted to do eng lit and lang, sociology and philosophy but ended up on eng lit and lang plus media studies.

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

Media studies

Im doing that as a filler

The way things are going i may major in politics

Pity i dont have an idealogy. y understanding of poltics is pretty good but my only real opinion is "Tommy sheridan is a ****ing idiot"

[G_frog]

Strongly agree, i've been saying it for years. all the academic rigour of fraggle rock*, dressed up in phrasing which deliberately avoids clarity.


*i was going to say sesame street, before I realised that it was actually more intellectually sound than the average english essay.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Don't you be mocking fraggle rock, earthboy.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Pity i dont have an idealogy. y understanding of poltics is pretty good but my only real opinion is "Tommy sheridan is a ****ing idiot"

Exchange 'Tommy Sheridan' for 'Tony Blair', multiply tens of times, and you have all the people on my politics course.


Please stay away from the academic discipline of Poitical Science. Thank you.


Oh, and exchange 'pretty good' for 'pretty shit'.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Please stay away from the academic discipline of Poitical Science. Thank you.

Don't you be dragging the good name of science down with your political filth

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Don't you be dragging the good name of science down with your political filth

It's scientific, and it's political, so what else should we call it?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

It's scientific, and it's political, so what else should we call it?

In what way is it scientific?

How the hell can you have a repeatable experiment in politics?

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Exchange 'Tommy Sheridan' for 'Tony Blair', multiply tens of times, and you have all the people on my politics course.


Please stay away from the academic discipline of Poitical Science. Thank you.


Oh, and exchange 'pretty good' for 'pretty shit'.

When i'm PM, therell be no room for fence sitting bisexuals like you.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

When i'm PM

Particulate matter?

You're going to get blown up?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Pity i dont have an idealogy. y understanding of poltics is pretty good but my only real opinion is "Tommy sheridan is a ****ing idiot"

Why is he a ****ing idiot?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Why is he a ****ing idiot?

If he's anything like John J Sheridan, he'll get round things by shouting rather than having actual opinions.

And John J Sheridan made it to president I'll have you know.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

When i'm PM, therell be no room for fence sitting bisexuals like you.

You couldn't even be elected Mayor of Hartlepool, you McShiet. Even if you dresed up in a clown costume and dispensed French monkeys from a blimp.




On second thoughts, look what happened with Prescott and John Major.



I fear for the future.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Why is he a ****ing idiot?

He's Scottish, and a Socialist, and is therefore approximate to something approaching a Mongol Barbarian in the minds of most Southerners.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

He's Scottish, and a Socialist, and is therefore approximate to something approaching a Mongol Barbarian in the minds of most Southerners.

Deffeh's from glasgow though...?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

How the hell can you have a repeatable experiment in politics?

Scientific analysis, approach, etc.

We don't actually get beakers out and melt down Thatcherites in vats, you know, although I wouldn't stand in anyone's way, hohoho.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Deffeh's from glasgow though...?

I was making a completely irrelevant side-point, because I had nothing else to say, al la Nod.


He is a stick-swinging populist twat though. You have to hand it to the chap.

[G_frog]

You don't have to have theory->experiment->new theory on some models of science; you just need statements which can be falsified. falisification by logic or existing evidence will do. it's just hard to develop good theoretical frameworks and avoid ad hoc theories under those conditions.

[ParraCida]

English isn't even a proper language.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by ParraCida

English isn't even a proper language.

Why on Earth not?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by G_frog

You don't have to have theory->experiment->new theory on some models of science; you just need statements which can be falsified. falisification by logic or existing evidence will do. it's just hard to develop good theoretical frameworks and avoid ad hoc theories under those conditions.

Problems:

No control.

No repeatability.

No mathematical framework of any meaning.

etc

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Why on Earth not?

I don't think he was being serious, luv.

If he was though, then we'll flood his country and steal their windmills. Mabye even set fire to Belgium on the way back.

[MrL_JaKiri]

The windmills will keep him cool!


WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT

[ParraCida]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Why on Earth not?

Its part this, part that, inconsistency here, no structure there.

Every time england was conquered they took a piece of the conquerors language and used it. My dutch teacher could explain it a lot better than me, in any case, the scandinavian and roman people had the biggest influences on it.

Ofcourse, don't try to tell this to any brittish person, it's almost on almost on the same level of denial as acknowledging the colonial power of the netherlands in the 16/17th century.

[ParraCida]

how stupid am I posting this on a mainly brittish forum.


5-6 posters in rapid succession, 2 making fun, 3 denying this with facts and one semi acknowleding it but not agreeing with it.

[G_frog]

Yes, i know.

Originally Posted by G_frog

it's just hard to develop good theoretical frameworks and avoid ad hoc theories under those conditions.

a lack of control does not prevent an experiment falsifying a statement about the outcome of the experiment, it just makes it hard to determine which factors affect the outcome.

results are repeatable in the sense that statements can be made about a class of events which recur.

Mathematics is inessential, it's just incredibly useful.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Well, aside from the fact that english 1000 years ago would have been unrecogniseable today (which was the last time we were conquered), why do you seem to think that all languages spring into life fully formed?

Do you speak Esparanto?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by ParraCida

Its part this, part that, inconsistency here, no structure there.

I see you're following the traditional linguistic method of defining a language then.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by G_frog

...

The trouble with that is that the main power of science resides in the things that it lacks.

[G_frog]

Originally Posted by ParraCida

Every time england was conquered they took a piece of the conquerors language and used it. My dutch teacher could explain it a lot better than me, in any case, the scandinavian and roman people had the biggest influences on it.

Ofcourse, don't try to tell this to any brittish person, it's almost on almost on the same level of denial as acknowledging the colonial power of the netherlands in the 16/17th century.

What are you talking about? we all know english is a mish mash, and if i realised the netherlands were a major colonial power it seems scarcely credible that others would actively deny it.

[G_frog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The trouble with that is that the main power of science resides in the things that it lacks.

So? that doesn't mean it can't be a science (though it probably isn't).