The tea bag box is running out of tea bags ):
There might be more somewhere in the cupboard.
Hopefully it's not decaf.
I like tea.
whee?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Threatening their very existence
Now, of course, this threatened their survival (core interest!) because if they continued to perspire and have gooey chocolate dripping down their chinny chin chins, they would be No More and this went against the very definition of a Malteser. (A Malteser is defined by the pact their ancestors made, vowing never to cross over to the dark side of No More.)
Moreover, if they allowed themselves to drip all over the wheat field, it would proof and become KoKo Krunch. And that was a very Bad Thing indeed.
---
[rant]
Why oh why oh why do they have to include the word 'infrastructure' when crafting the Geog AA writing task? Could I explain in a paragraph how public transport infrastructure enhances public transport itself (how it affects the people's/public's/consumers' choice on whether to take public transport, how much more efficient it is, etc)?
Then in subsequent paragraphs I explain how the more efficient system brings about future economic growth and development, or how more people taking public transport reduces congestion or whatever and somehow tie it to economic growth and development, and also how that means we're being more environmentally friendly, and environmental consciousness is more of a characteristic of more developed countries?
I feel as though I'm not addressing the question.
Also, I don't see how I can use "pertinent" evidence from the websites and discourse. I'd probably be using evidence just for the sake of doing so. Which means my Depth of Reflection criteria in the rubrics (which has double the weight) will automatically be a 2, or at most 3 no matter how "thoughtful" or "insightful" my reflection is. (Which is not even very insightful. The only point that isn't as predictable is the environment thing, I guess.)
Maybe I could say how the public transport corporations also have employees, but if we improve and further develop the infrastructure by replacing human work with technology, people wouldn't have jobs? (Like, if the trains are driven by Technology instead of real human drivers, what would happen to these people? However, I'm not sure if a significant number of these people have lost jobs because of this to make this point valid, and I'm not even sure if people have lost jobs - because it may be that they always have been using computers and thus do not have drivers before to fire, and anyway there's always still people there to make sure nothing goes wrong or anything). Also, I'm not sure how this links to economic growth and stuff. :/
GAHHHH!
[/rant]
Moreover, if they allowed themselves to drip all over the wheat field, it would proof and become KoKo Krunch. And that was a very Bad Thing indeed.
---
[rant]
Why oh why oh why do they have to include the word 'infrastructure' when crafting the Geog AA writing task? Could I explain in a paragraph how public transport infrastructure enhances public transport itself (how it affects the people's/public's/consumers' choice on whether to take public transport, how much more efficient it is, etc)?
Then in subsequent paragraphs I explain how the more efficient system brings about future economic growth and development, or how more people taking public transport reduces congestion or whatever and somehow tie it to economic growth and development, and also how that means we're being more environmentally friendly, and environmental consciousness is more of a characteristic of more developed countries?
I feel as though I'm not addressing the question.
Also, I don't see how I can use "pertinent" evidence from the websites and discourse. I'd probably be using evidence just for the sake of doing so. Which means my Depth of Reflection criteria in the rubrics (which has double the weight) will automatically be a 2, or at most 3 no matter how "thoughtful" or "insightful" my reflection is. (Which is not even very insightful. The only point that isn't as predictable is the environment thing, I guess.)
Maybe I could say how the public transport corporations also have employees, but if we improve and further develop the infrastructure by replacing human work with technology, people wouldn't have jobs? (Like, if the trains are driven by Technology instead of real human drivers, what would happen to these people? However, I'm not sure if a significant number of these people have lost jobs because of this to make this point valid, and I'm not even sure if people have lost jobs - because it may be that they always have been using computers and thus do not have drivers before to fire, and anyway there's always still people there to make sure nothing goes wrong or anything). Also, I'm not sure how this links to economic growth and stuff. :/
GAHHHH!
[/rant]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)