02 Class TUE SEP 07

02 Class TUE SEP 07

Writing Quote Thomas Mann

Housekeeping

Permit me to share with you the Comp 2 Preview Survey Results.


Warmup


Get a WordPress Username

  1. Navigate to wordpress.com
wpstep01

2. Click “Start your website,” but remember, we’re not going to Start a Website. We’re just going to get you a username.

Wordpress Terms4

3. PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE WITH GOOGLE OR APPLE! You won’t be able to choose a username if you do.

4. Enter THE EMAIL ADDRESS YOU CAN RETRIEVE IN CLASS TODAY.

5. Enter an ANONYMOUS username designed to protect your identity so you can receive feedback on the blog without being recognized by your classmates.

6. Choose and RECORD your password. Perhaps take a screenshot of this form filled out. I can’t help you find or retrieve lost passwords.

7. Click “Create your account.”

Wordpress Terms5

8. Resist the temptation to “get your site a domain.” You don’t need a site, so you won’t need a domain. (If you actually DO want to start your own WordPress blog, you certainly may, but come back later and sign in to WordPress using your new account to do that on your own time.

 🙂 )

Wordpress Terms6

.

9. Go find the email WordPress sent you and Activate your Account.

10. LEAVE A COMMENT IN THE REPLY FIELD BELOW CONGRATULATING YOURSELF FOR SUCCESSFULLY JOINING THE BLOG!

11. Email me your username so I can invite you to the Counterintuitive Fall 2021 blog. Send your email to blog@davidhodges.com


Agenda

  1. Lecture/Demo:
    • Quick Preview of a Research Proposal Argument
      .
  2. Read and understand the Take Home Assignment on Canvas.
  3. LECTURE/DEMO (if time permits):
    • Quick Review Blog assignment: “My Hypothesis.”

..

78 Responses to 02 Class TUE SEP 07

  1. cocochanel715 says:

    Learned today that the Russian elections can be sabotages by having 3 of the same look alike people, with the same name also, can run on the communist party.

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      Almost, Coco. I wasn’t 100% clear in my explanation about this phenomenon. The Russian Communist Party sponsors “opposition” candidates to run against the communist candidate. In the newest version of this tactic, if an actual legitimate candidate gains traction in an election race, the CP finds someone who looks like the real candidate and who has (or who is willing to adopt) the name of the real candidate and puts them on the ballot too to create confusion among voters and split the vote so neither candidate gets a majority.

      Like

  2. cfalover says:

    When we went discussed the riddle of the day, we learned the difference between a scotch bottle and a bottle of scotch (empty vs not). Through this, David actually compared this counterintuitive riddle to how some of our witty sentences in our future drafts might sound. I now know that sometimes when I think a sentence I write might be witty and sound very good in my draft, to him it might read the opposite and make him very confused.

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      That’s one possibility, chickfila. The other is that your witty sentence, by itself, might be letter-perfect and a joy to behold, but simply not be relevant to your paragraph, thesis, essay. Even perfect witticisms must be cut if they undermine (or even fail to the contribute to) the flow of the argument.

      MORE ON KILLING YOUR DARLINGS:
      The new movie Kill Your Darlings, starring Daniel Radcliffe as Allen Ginsberg and Dane DeHaan as Lucien Carr, takes its name from an old piece of advice sometimes given to aspiring writers. You have to learn, literary hopefuls are told, to “kill your darlings.”

      In other words, you have to get rid of your most precious and especially self-indulgent passages for the greater good of your literary work. In reviews of the movie, the widely repeated saying has been attributed both to Ginsberg and to William Faulkner. Who really came up with “kill your darlings”?

      Not who you think. Variations on the “murder your darlings” saying, including “kill your darlings” and “kill your babies,” have been handed down in writing workshops and guides for decades, and almost every major 20th century English author has been cited at one time or another. In addition to the common attribution to Faulkner—“In writing, you must kill all your darlings”—which seems to have been popularized in guides to screenwriting in the 1990s, the advice has also been attributed to Oscar Wilde, Eudora Welty, G.K. Chesterton, “the great master Chekov,” and Stephen King, who wrote, “kill your darlings, kill your darlings, even when it breaks your egocentric little scribbler’s heart, kill your darlings.”

      But the earliest known example of the phrase is not from any of these writers, but rather Arthur Quiller-Couch, who spread it in his widely reprinted 1913-1914 Cambridge lectures “On the Art of Writing.” In his 1914 lecture “On Style,” he said, while railing against “extraneous Ornament”:

      If you here require a practical rule of me, I will present you with this: ‘Whenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it—whole-heartedly—and delete it before sending your manuscript to press. Murder your darlings.

      Of course, all these citations to names like Faulkner, Wilde, and Chekov may have helped the saying spread—it’s hard to imagine it spreading as quickly as attributed to the lesser-known Quiller-Couch. But whether you’re talking about killing darlings or murdering babies, it’s best to follow another rule of writing: Check your sources.

      Like

  3. ilovedunkinoverstarbucks says:

    In class today we discussed a riddle about a bottle of scotch and the riddle was something that I would have never guessed the answer to due to the very hidden grammar in the riddle. While it may have been a simple riddle it showed me a different perspective on grammar and to look at a riddle in a way I would not have thought about. We also learned to use wordpress or at least log into it and get things going for future assignments.

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      Will you hate me if I quibble about your syntax in something as innocent as your first class note, contributed in good faith to demonstrate only that you could post a Reply?

      I hope not, but here goes:

      You say . . .

      In class today we discussed a riddle about a bottle of scotch and the riddle was something that I would have never guessed the answer to due to the very hidden grammar in the riddle.

      . . . which a patient reader can certainly untangle, but which still requires too much language and too much work. For example, it has to name “riddle” three times. Much better is any grammar construction that simplifies the declaration down to its essence, such as:

      In class today we discussed the answer to a riddle about an empty bottle of scotch that depended on a very obscure bit of grammar.

      Yes, the correction is picky, but I hope you won’t see it as pointless. I will be just as quick to praise you when you phrase things beautifully.

      Like

  4. toastedflatbread22 says:

    Good job to me for joining the class blog! Today I learned about the importance of using our words carefully in the English language. There is a huge difference between an empty bottle of scotch and an empty scotch bottle. One is implying that a full bottle of scotch is empty and the other is implying that there is a bottle that once contained scotch, but is now empty. The meaning behind words can change with the order of our phrases, which is amazing.

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      Hooray for joining the blog!
      And hooray for declaring the impact of careful phrasing to be amazing!

      I was thinking this on Route 42 headed north to Collingswood:
      1. She hit me with an empty bottle of Scotch.
      2. She hit me with an empty Scotch bottle.
      3. She hit me with a bottle that had been emptied of Scotch.
      4. She hit me with a bottle from which all the Scotch had been emptied.
      5. She hit me with a bottle emptied of Scotch.
      6. She hit me with a bottle she had emptied of Scotch.

      Only one is wrong. The rest are logically similar but grammatically different and variously nuanced. Three of them seem logically identical but not as interesting as the only version that suggests that she was drunk when she hit me. Your reactions?

      Like

      • toastedflatbread22 says:

        I had no idea there were so many ways to phrase things and basically always get the same point across. I am thinking the last one is implying that she was drunk when she hit me, as she did the emptying. I suppose there are so many other ways to phrase this such as “she hit me with an empty bottle previously containing scotch”- this STILL gets the same point across. The English language is vast.

        Like

  5. Lunaduna says:

    In class today, we talked about the grammatical errors in writing. Starting with a riddle about Scotch. (The difference between an empty bottle of Scotch vs an empty Scotch bottle.) The riddle helped me think about my writing, and to be careful how I use grammar.

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      I’m glad you had that reaction to the Riddle, LunaDuna.

      I was thinking this on Route 42 headed north to Collingswood:

      1. She hit me with an empty bottle of Scotch.
      2. She hit me with an empty Scotch bottle.
      3. She hit me with a bottle that had been emptied of Scotch.
      4. She hit me with a bottle from which all the Scotch had been emptied.
      5. She hit me with a bottle emptied of Scotch.
      6. She hit me with a bottle she had emptied of Scotch.

      Only one is wrong. The rest are logically similar but grammatically different and variously nuanced. Three of them seem logically identical but not as interesting as the only version that suggests that she was drunk when she hit me.

      Number 6 doesn’t say she was drunk. It doesn’t say she drank the Scotch. But it certainly hints that she did so. Consider the equally possible and much more straightforward alternative:

      She emptied the Scotch bottle into a glass and drank it down. Then she hit me with the empty bottle.

      It’s clear. It communicates the facts. But it is NEARLY as effective as collaborating with the reader. The trick to REALLY effective writing is making the reader do THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF WORK.

      “She hit me with a bottle she had emptied of Scotch” doesn’t just communicate facts; it lures the reader into the insinuation that she drank the Scotch and was therefore more likely to strike me with the bottle. Readers who COME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS (conclusions you have carefully set for them like traps) are much more likely to find your work persuasive.

      Like

  6. zzbrd2822 says:

    In class today, we discussed how in Russia the communist party can sabotage the opposing party by running multiple candidates that look alike against them, to guarantee that the communist party wins. We also educated ourselves by using a riddle about how there is no such thing as an empty bottle of Scotch, to highlight the importance of grammar and how it affects the meaning of a statement. Lastly, we successfully created WordPress accounts and became authors for the class blog.

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      This is a beautiful sentence Zzbrd, particularly the “running multiple candidates that look alike against them” part:

      In class today, we discussed how in Russia the communist party can sabotage the opposing party by running multiple candidates that look alike against them, to guarantee that the communist party wins.

      You may have noticed (but if you haven’t, may I highlight it for you) that long stretches of language requiring no punctuation—sections that unravel like a hose from a caddy—are very often the most eloquent and economical. Your sentence

      We discussed how in Russia the communist party can sabotage the opposing party by running multiple candidates that look alike against them to guarantee that the communist party wins.

      unspools itself without hesitation. That ease of reading is usually the result of hard work. If such sentences come to you effortlessly, I will try to find something else to teach you.

      Like

  7. mossmacabre says:

    In class, we learned how to spot specific grammatical errors using the riddle “Why is there no such thing as an empty bottle of scotch?”. The answer was that an empty bottle is an empty bottle, whereas a bottle of scotch is a bottle full of scotch. We also learned that in Russia, the three men that are competing for office have the same last names and similar faces in order to confuse voters.

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      I’m completely in favor of your perceptive observations, Macabre, with one small exception. While it is true that the only thing that makes a bottle a bottle of Scotch is that it contains Scotch, it is not true that three men in Russia have similar faces in order to confuse voters. They have similar faces by accident. They WERE PLACED ON THE BALLOT together in order to confuse voters.

      Like

  8. levixvice says:

    The empty bottle of scotch depends on what is in the bottle and what is not. It was a grammatical context that I didn’t even know of. The Russian analogy wasn’t about the election being the main idea but the corruption of using identical sir names and face to make sure Putin won.

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      I wonder if these notes would make any sense to you a few months hence, Levi.
      —”The empty bottle of scotch” doesn’t depend on anything. The question of whether there can even BE an EMPTY bottle OF SCOTCH does depend on what is in the bottle and what is not. If it contains anything, it can’t be empty. And if it’s empty, it can’t be a bottle OF SCOTCH.
      —You’re right about the Russian election example. My point was not about justice in Russian politics. It was about things that seem similar (an empty Scotch bottle and an empty Scotch bottle) but aren’t (like three Russians named Boris Vishnevskys).

      Like

  9. lokiofasgard24 says:

    Discussed the difficulty on english grammar through a riddle about an empty bottle and a bottle fo scotch.
    Prof. explained how the leader of a communist government sabotaged an election by adding candidates with the same name and appearance in an attempt to confuse voters.

    Like

  10. zipemup1 says:

    Today we learned the difference between a bottle of empty Scotch and an empty Scotch bottle. Small errors can be found in sentences that we sometimes overlook.

    Like

  11. gingerbreadman27 says:

    Today we discussed how a bottle of scotch cannot be empty but a scotch bottle can be empty. We also learned how Russia interferes in elections.

    Like

  12. kingofcamp says:

    Today in class we discussed two important things. First, we discussed a riddle about Scotch. What was important wasn’t the actual question itself, it was the grammatical setup of that very riddle. The riddle asked “Why is there no such thing as an empty bottle of scotch?”. Instead of saying, “…empty bottle of scotch”, we should say, “empty scotch bottle”- this makes grammatical sense. The last thing we discussed was how to set up a WordPress account which was very helpful.

    Like

  13. tarheel1999 says:

    Welcome to the blog!

    Like

    • tarheel1999 says:

      Today, we learned about the difference between precision and accuracy. This difference is that while something may be precise (or measured to the closest possible unit), it is not necessarily accurate (or true). An example of this could be a broken clock – it may have a hand on the exact second upon which it stopped, but that is not necessarily the actual current time.

      Like

  14. comatosefox says:

    Hey look ma I made it!

    Like

  15. davidbdale says:

    Today we learned that there is a difference between an empty bottle and a bottle of scotch.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. frogs02 says:

    Today we learned what the difference is between precision and accuracy.

    Like

  17. sunshinegirl457 says:

    Today I learned how to navigate the website and got some useful tools to help aid me in this course.

    Like

  18. jonnyb25 says:

    Today I learned how to setup wordpress

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      Not to be a stickler . . . who am I kidding? . . . I’m nothing if not a stickler.
      1. Today I learned how to set up WordPress.
      2. Today I learned about WordPress setup.

      This is true in so many constructions.
      1. I invested in a startup business.
      2. My uncle plans to start up a business.

      1. This QB knows how to hand off a football.
      2. The running back received the handoff from the QB.

      Like

  19. krackintheneck says:

    Today we talked about the difference between precise and accuracy, while also learning how we need to be clear in our writing.

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      You will dislike me (I hope not forever) for this reaction, Krack.
      Avoid the phrase “talked about” like poison. Also avoid “learned how” unless you really mean HOW. Let’s take these one at a time.
      1. We did “talk about” the difference between precise and accurate. But the fact that we talked about them is not useful. WHAT WE SAID about them is useful. If you can detail the difference, THAT’S a good note. Your classmate Tarheel did a good job of it:

      Today, we learned about the difference between precision and accuracy. This difference is that while something may be precise (or measured to the closest possible unit), it is not necessarily accurate (or true). An example of this could be a broken clock – it may have a hand on the exact second upon which it stopped, but that is not necessarily the actual current time.

      2. We didn’t learn HOW we need to be clear in our writing, we learned THAT we need to be clear in our writing. A good example of the difference here would be

      A) my friend taught me THAT I could get out of handcuffs compared with B) my friend taught me HOW to get out of handcuffs.

      Like

  20. chickendinner21 says:

    Today we went over the results of last week’s survey, learned about the importance of using language accurately, and created our WordPress accounts.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. imaspookyghost says:

    Today we learned that an empty bottle of scotch cannot exist, but a empty scotch bottle can. A small choice in word order changes the clarity of a sentence. Then we signed up for the blog with unique usernames.

    Like

  22. calamariii says:

    Today we learned that how we use and apply feedback and suggestions is very important to our grades improving from the initial draft

    Like

  23. RowanAnnouncer says:

    Professor David Hodges, was caught this morning influencing his students to drink scotch! Immediate action will ensue shortly.

    Like

  24. disneylover2002 says:

    Today we learned that there is a difference between an empty bottle and a bottle of scotch. We also went over how to get onto the blog, and then we made an account and became a member of the blog. We also went over the results from the survey we took last week, and the professor went over why they matter to him.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. strawberryfields4 says:

    Today we learned the difference between accuracy and precision. While precision is more specific and detailed, it does not mean that it is always factual and true. Accuracy does not imply that the information is necessarily particular, simply that it is true.

    Like

  26. Today we talked about the difference between precision and accuracy. I also learned how important it is to use specific words in order to convey your thoughts to a reader.

    Like

  27. Lily4Pres says:

    Today we went over the the difference between precision and accuracy, and how it relates to grammar through the riddle about a bottle of scotch. The riddle surrounded the question, “Why can a bottle of scotch never be empty?” The answer rests in the word choice ‘of’. if it is a bottle ‘of’ scotch, scotch is required in the bottle. We then went over the attendance requirements of each class. Which is not only being here, physically, but also taking notes on what we discussed and learned.

    Like

  28. kilotoon says:

    Today we spoke about the difference of between an empty bottle and a bottle of scotch. We created and verified our accounts with WordPress and joined the class blog. We learned to sign in the blog every time we come to class and learned that if some extenuating circumstance keeps us from coming to class in person, it’s acceptable to take notes and keep up with the work while class is in session to earn credit as long as this privilege is not abused.

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      The rest of your Reply meets the standard for good Notes, Kilotoon, but this first sentence violates the ban on “talked about” claims:

      Today we spoke about the difference of between an empty bottle and a bottle of scotch.

      It merely identifies the topic without specifying what was said about it.

      Like

  29. venom2929 says:

    Today we created our word press accounts and learned that there is a difference between an empty bottle and a bottle of scotch.

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      Nobody ever doubted that there is a difference between an empty bottle and a bottle of scotch, Venom, but some may have claimed that there is such as thing as an empty bottle of scotch. Are they right?

      Like

  30. notaperson0515 says:

    Today we talked about the value of responding to the comments on our drafts. We learned about how an empty bottle of scotch is different from a bottle of scotch. It’s because a bottle of scotch can be empty but still have a label and the shape of the bottle but it won’t have scotch in it.

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      Well . . . I would rephrase BOTH of your observations, Nonperson.
      1. We EMPHASIZED THAT responding to comments on our drafts IS CRUCIAL.
      2. We CLARIFIED that an EMPTY BOTTLE OF SCOTCH is grammatically impossible because a bottle of scotch REQUIRES SCOTCH and therefore CANNOT BE EMPTY whereas a SCOTCH BOTTLE can be empty as long as it used to contain Scotch and bears a Scotch label.

      Like

      • notaperson0515 says:

        Thank you for replying to my post. After reading my post again I realized that I didn’t state the key points of my observations. The value of responding to the comments on our draft can be very crucial. I didn’t make a clear distinction between an empty bottle of scotch and a scotch bottle.

        Like

  31. zeek says:

    Today we learned how to use WordPress and how to navigate it.

    Like

  32. sunshinegirl457 says:

    Ignore my other comment. Today we broke down the website and the blog, and were told a riddle. It was about an empty bottle of scotch and it taught the lesson to be very very specific when writing anything. I learned that I still have to do the survey and that in a pinch the agenda page can count as attendance.

    Like

  33. littlecow24 says:

    Excited to be an author!
    – It is important to realize how you really writing and what your words mean. An empty Scotch bottle is much different than an empty bottle of Scotch, as there cannot actually be an empty bottle of Scotch… it doesn’t exist. On the contrary, an empty Scotch bottle exists because it is clearly a Scotch bottle with the label and shape.
    – The use of different people on a ballet that look the same and have the same name as an actual candidate shows how much power the government really has over us as a society.

    Like

  34. ziggy026 says:

    Today we learned that there is an incredible difference between accuracy and precision. We also learned that there is no such thing as an empty scotch class since scotch is required to be present in the glass in order to be accurately considered a glass of scotch.

    Like

  35. tyblicky2001 says:

    Congrats to me for setting up an wordpress account! Today I figured out the riddle about the empty bottle of scotch, but I already knew the answer.

    Like

  36. spaghettitacosforthesoul says:

    Paying attention to grammatical details that is normalized in society. An empty scotch bottle is the correct terminology to use in order to refer to an empty bottle that contains a certain liquid. We also went over political themes in authoritative power in russia and how Putin is using communism to his advantage.

    Like

  37. nugget114 says:

    In class we learned that the Russian Communist Party always plans the election according to their candidate. If one of them seems to actually be gaining the lead in an election, the Communist Party will find people that look enough like the real candidate to run as the “opposition”. They even go as far as to change all of the candidates names to be identical. In doing so, voters naturally get thrown off when filling out a ballot and therefore the original candidate typically wins. This is logical because the votes will be too closely distributed between the candidates also causing inaccurate voter counts.

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      Not exactly, nugget. The technique is deployed against candidates from the OPPOSING party, When a candidate gains traction against the State, Putin’s party will solicit and groom candidates to split the opposition vote. In the classroom example, they took this strategy to the extreme by running candidates who looked like the real candidate and had changed their names to his as well.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s