You know what doesn't really grind my gears?

[Roto13]

OOC:	Roto, I gather the The Ceej is not your favourite member at EoFF, but please try not to be on his tail with some disparaging remark every time he posts. Thank you.

NEVAR!

[Lynx]

cynical people.

overly cautious people.

[Old Manus]

School is supposed to educate children, not brainwash them.

Really? I was under the impression that the primary purpose of school was to brainwash children to conform them to the mindless drones they want in society. Education has always been an afterthought.

[Madame Adequate]

OOC:	Roto, I gather the The Ceej is not your favourite member at EoFF, but please try not to be on his tail with some disparaging remark every time he posts. Thank you.

But it's so difficult.

Manus is giant win btw.

[Raebus]

The early Christians just based their holidays around the same time as the Pagans celebrated their holidays.

Christmas: Winter Solstice. Who wouldn't celebrate the lengthening of the days? But, the Christians wanted a holiday then, so they just decided that they'd throw the birth of Jesus at around that time.
Easter: A General Spring holiday - so much happens in Spring, it can all be celebrated! Again, the Christians probably decided that because the PAGANS had a holiday then, they had to have a holiday - and the resurrection of Jesus sounded good. ;D

Well, that's my reasoning for the holiday placements.

yeah.. that must be it.. besides the fact that the Jews invented easter, still being called pesach back then. and they had their own calander, so i really doubt that they adjusted it to the pagans.. and its not like Jesus was born on christmas day.. no noo.. they just decided to celebrate it on that day, because the pagans did something then..

.. if you are not smart enough to understand.. that was sarcasm

Even someone who as you say "Is smart enough to understand" probably wouldn't bother figuring out that mess of a paragraph.

[Heath]

1) Concerts.

I agree with you on this one. I've never really understood it myself, either.

2) Anti-commercialism/consumerism/corporatism

I honestly think a lot of people whine about this sort of thing and about how America is most evil country in the world simply because it's seen as a cool thing to do. Having said that, I do think there are some genuine grievances with companies like McDonalds in regards to their treatment of staff, the products they sell and how ridiculously litigious they are. If people have genuine reasons for they're whining, I have less of a problem. If people are jumping on the bandwagon, that really grinds my gears.

3) The concept of nationality.

Obviously the concept of a nationality is more of an issue for you living in Northern Ireland than it was for me living in Wales but I disagree. I think there are certain cultural norms that are associated with a certain society or certain country that you won't find in other countries and certainly every country has its strengths and weaknesses, the former you can be proud of. I wouldn't describe myself as a nationalist really, but I do think Britain is a bloody good country.

Sorry if it seemed I singled you out a bit, just yours were amongst the most interesting raised in the thread.

What grinds my gears? Well, everyone saying Everton are a physical team is certainly quite irritating considering we're second in the Fair Play league (only Liverpool, who've played a game less, are higher).

[KuRt]

actually.. most holidays are.. but no one remembers.. i mean easter wasnt supposed to be about rabbits and colored eggs..

Fantastic Easter Special - 1105 - Watch - South Park Zone
you cant be more wrong ^^

[Aerith's Knight]

i did see that.. fun but talk about blasfemy

[Madame Adequate]

Obviously the concept of a nationality is more of an issue for you living in Northern Ireland than it was for me living in Wales but I disagree. I think there are certain cultural norms that are associated with a certain society or certain country that you won't find in other countries and certainly every country has its strengths and weaknesses, the former you can be proud of. I wouldn't describe myself as a nationalist really, but I do think Britain is a bloody good country.

All fair points, but I wouldn't say that religion should take the place of nationality. It's not even so much that there aren't differences as there oughtn't to be, and also, the similarities encompass broader groups than most care to admit. The US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada could form one nation tomorrow and very little would have to change for the people living in it. We'd adopt a single currency throughout it, the way some of our laws are codified would change for some people, and that's it. We'd still all believe in a day's work for a day's pay, a fair go, equality before the law, political freedoms, etc. etc. People think that because two countries implement their ideals differently, that they must have different ideals. This is not necessarily true, and I would personally say it's false - they merely differ in how best to implement the ideals.

Now that wouldn't extend to, for example, including the Russian Federation or China or anything like that easily - because those societies do operate differently and it'd take time to get them to the necessary standards of democracy and suchlike - but much as I'd like to wake up tomorrow to a One World Government, I think progress can and should be made in the general direction of one.

[Vincent, Thunder God]

I wrote this a few years ago when I was at my wits end with being forced to do English Literature. I got a C in the end. [/wasteoftime]


English Literature is officially the stupidest subject in the galaxy.

Books are meant for a single purpose: To be read. Nothing more. If I was to buy a book, I would read it, and it may take me a few days to a few weeks to complete, depending on time/motivation. Once I'd finished, I would put it on the bookshelf, and there it would gather dust for the next few months/years until I decide to read it again. If, however, I find the book sucks, I stop reading, put it on the bookshelf, and there it would gather dust for the next few years until I decide to sell it or use it as a source of firewood/toilet paper.

What I definately would not do is write around six million pages of endless notes on the characters, themes, thoughts and feelings that are inside the book. Welcome to the wacky world that is English Literature. In this most exciting of subjects you get the privelidge of reading a book around five times a month, making tons of notes and stupid 'Spider Diagrams' on whatever the hell you've just had forced on you, and at the end you get to write even more pages about the book, except this time in the form of answers to vague questions such as 'What are the thoughts and feelings of John Smith throughout Chapt. 3?'. I'm practically wet with excitement.

Case in Point: GCSE study of 'Of Mice And Men'
For a start, why the hell any sane fifteen year-old kid would want to read a seventy year-old novella about two cowboys and their adventure(s?) on a ranch is beyond me. I personally found the book terrifyingly mundane and boring, maybe because of the less than exciting method of having it rammed down our throats for two years to make it 'stick'. It stuck alright, it stuck to serve as one of, if not the most mind-numbingly boring and frustrating experience at school. Whatever anyone says about John Steinbeck and his awesome greatness, this book was not good at all. I didn't like Shakespeare either, but that's another story. English Literature has a way of making the most interesting piece of text so boring you contemplate suicide just to end the nightmare. I'm sure if I had read Of Mice And Men out of my own accord, and when I felt like it, I would have enjoyed it more. But I'm not here to complain about the book, just the subject.

The most annoying thing about English Literature is the fact that you ABSOLUTELY MUST read so much between the lines that suddenly everything loses all meaning and you wonder why the hell you're bothering to analyse this book anyway. For God's sake, it's a book. The characters are fictional. They don't have 'thoughts and feelings'. They don't 'do this because this happened'. It's a figment of the writer's imagination. If you want to find out why John Smith did action X, ask the damn author, because sure as hell he's the only one who has a true idea about what he's writing, yet most of the time you look so deep into the text the author himself will get the urge to slap you in the face and say 'It's only a book'.

For example, a question that sticks in my mind was 'Crooks is introduced in Chapter 4. Why do you think Steinbeck put him into the story?' I don't bloody know, do I? Do I look like I have an inside-out knowledge of Steinbeck's brain complex? I don't think he knows anymore either, seeing as he died about forty years ago. Secondly, why should I care? Why should I care about the (no doubt, very deep) reasoning behind adding a character to some dumb book? How does this improve my understanding of the story? These are all questions you should ask next time you decide to write a 3 page essay on a stupid question about a stupid book. Hopefully pondering this will give you the courage to actually ask your teacher why the hell the subject is on the curriculum, and how it can ever cross anyone's mind to decide to teach this rubbish for the next twenty years. I appreciate that a knowledge of famous literature can help you in some abstract ways, but apart from getting that extra point in your local pub quiz, I see no point in relentlessly poring over these century-old novels and trying to pick out every single meaning behind every single line said by every single character. It's pointless, and stupid.

What skills do you hone when studying this subject? Reading? 'Book Analysis'? I'll tell you what skills you hone with this subject. To make it easier, here it is in list form:


1.


If I want to improve my reading skills, It's none of the curriculum's business how I do it. I read the paper. I read the internet. I occaisonally read books. I do not spend two+ years going through a rainforest of paper to come to one conclusion: Why the hell am I doing this?

Up yours, English Literature.

This is so very true. Every book I've read in school is dampened by the excessive analyzing of a novel which would leave much more of a learning experience if taken as a whole, as the author intended, without a binder full of explanations and no one should attempt to spew out the "definitive" right answer to ANY of those questions because the author wrote it, not them!

[Zeldy]

I wrote this a few years ago when I was at my wits end with being forced to do English Literature. I got a C in the end. [/wasteoftime]


English Literature is officially the stupidest subject in the galaxy.

Books are meant for a single purpose: To be read. Nothing more. If I was to buy a book, I would read it, and it may take me a few days to a few weeks to complete, depending on time/motivation. Once I'd finished, I would put it on the bookshelf, and there it would gather dust for the next few months/years until I decide to read it again. If, however, I find the book sucks, I stop reading, put it on the bookshelf, and there it would gather dust for the next few years until I decide to sell it or use it as a source of firewood/toilet paper.

What I definately would not do is write around six million pages of endless notes on the characters, themes, thoughts and feelings that are inside the book. Welcome to the wacky world that is English Literature. In this most exciting of subjects you get the privelidge of reading a book around five times a month, making tons of notes and stupid 'Spider Diagrams' on whatever the hell you've just had forced on you, and at the end you get to write even more pages about the book, except this time in the form of answers to vague questions such as 'What are the thoughts and feelings of John Smith throughout Chapt. 3?'. I'm practically wet with excitement.

Case in Point: GCSE study of 'Of Mice And Men'
For a start, why the hell any sane fifteen year-old kid would want to read a seventy year-old novella about two cowboys and their adventure(s?) on a ranch is beyond me. I personally found the book terrifyingly mundane and boring, maybe because of the less than exciting method of having it rammed down our throats for two years to make it 'stick'. It stuck alright, it stuck to serve as one of, if not the most mind-numbingly boring and frustrating experience at school. Whatever anyone says about John Steinbeck and his awesome greatness, this book was not good at all. I didn't like Shakespeare either, but that's another story. English Literature has a way of making the most interesting piece of text so boring you contemplate suicide just to end the nightmare. I'm sure if I had read Of Mice And Men out of my own accord, and when I felt like it, I would have enjoyed it more. But I'm not here to complain about the book, just the subject.

The most annoying thing about English Literature is the fact that you ABSOLUTELY MUST read so much between the lines that suddenly everything loses all meaning and you wonder why the hell you're bothering to analyse this book anyway. For God's sake, it's a book. The characters are fictional. They don't have 'thoughts and feelings'. They don't 'do this because this happened'. It's a figment of the writer's imagination. If you want to find out why John Smith did action X, ask the damn author, because sure as hell he's the only one who has a true idea about what he's writing, yet most of the time you look so deep into the text the author himself will get the urge to slap you in the face and say 'It's only a book'.

For example, a question that sticks in my mind was 'Crooks is introduced in Chapter 4. Why do you think Steinbeck put him into the story?' I don't bloody know, do I? Do I look like I have an inside-out knowledge of Steinbeck's brain complex? I don't think he knows anymore either, seeing as he died about forty years ago. Secondly, why should I care? Why should I care about the (no doubt, very deep) reasoning behind adding a character to some dumb book? How does this improve my understanding of the story? These are all questions you should ask next time you decide to write a 3 page essay on a stupid question about a stupid book. Hopefully pondering this will give you the courage to actually ask your teacher why the hell the subject is on the curriculum, and how it can ever cross anyone's mind to decide to teach this rubbish for the next twenty years. I appreciate that a knowledge of famous literature can help you in some abstract ways, but apart from getting that extra point in your local pub quiz, I see no point in relentlessly poring over these century-old novels and trying to pick out every single meaning behind every single line said by every single character. It's pointless, and stupid.

What skills do you hone when studying this subject? Reading? 'Book Analysis'? I'll tell you what skills you hone with this subject. To make it easier, here it is in list form:


1.


If I want to improve my reading skills, It's none of the curriculum's business how I do it. I read the paper. I read the internet. I occaisonally read books. I do not spend two+ years going through a rainforest of paper to come to one conclusion: Why the hell am I doing this?

Up yours, English Literature.

This is so very true. Every book I've read in school is dampened by the excessive analyzing of a novel which would leave much more of a learning experience if taken as a whole, as the author intended, without a binder full of explanations and no one should attempt to spew out the "definitive" right answer to ANY of those questions because the author wrote it, not them!

BUT IT IS SUCH A FUN SUBJECT. Can none of you see the fun? ;__;
I find it so easy in comparison to every other subject. All you have to do is make connotations and PEE! (point. example. explanation) simple ;;

[Old Manus]

Simple, yet mind numbingly boring. And the fact that the examiner has a mark scheme which marks you right or wrong on how you personally interpret the book, is stupid.

Maybe it's just a female thing. The only people who were actually interested in the subject iirc were girls, the rest of us slept.

[Raebus]

I wrote this a few years ago when I was at my wits end with being forced to do English Literature. I got a C in the end. [/wasteoftime]


English Literature is officially the stupidest subject in the galaxy.

Books are meant for a single purpose: To be read. Nothing more. If I was to buy a book, I would read it, and it may take me a few days to a few weeks to complete, depending on time/motivation. Once I'd finished, I would put it on the bookshelf, and there it would gather dust for the next few months/years until I decide to read it again. If, however, I find the book sucks, I stop reading, put it on the bookshelf, and there it would gather dust for the next few years until I decide to sell it or use it as a source of firewood/toilet paper.

What I definately would not do is write around six million pages of endless notes on the characters, themes, thoughts and feelings that are inside the book. Welcome to the wacky world that is English Literature. In this most exciting of subjects you get the privelidge of reading a book around five times a month, making tons of notes and stupid 'Spider Diagrams' on whatever the hell you've just had forced on you, and at the end you get to write even more pages about the book, except this time in the form of answers to vague questions such as 'What are the thoughts and feelings of John Smith throughout Chapt. 3?'. I'm practically wet with excitement.

Case in Point: GCSE study of 'Of Mice And Men'
For a start, why the hell any sane fifteen year-old kid would want to read a seventy year-old novella about two cowboys and their adventure(s?) on a ranch is beyond me. I personally found the book terrifyingly mundane and boring, maybe because of the less than exciting method of having it rammed down our throats for two years to make it 'stick'. It stuck alright, it stuck to serve as one of, if not the most mind-numbingly boring and frustrating experience at school. Whatever anyone says about John Steinbeck and his awesome greatness, this book was not good at all. I didn't like Shakespeare either, but that's another story. English Literature has a way of making the most interesting piece of text so boring you contemplate suicide just to end the nightmare. I'm sure if I had read Of Mice And Men out of my own accord, and when I felt like it, I would have enjoyed it more. But I'm not here to complain about the book, just the subject.

The most annoying thing about English Literature is the fact that you ABSOLUTELY MUST read so much between the lines that suddenly everything loses all meaning and you wonder why the hell you're bothering to analyse this book anyway. For God's sake, it's a book. The characters are fictional. They don't have 'thoughts and feelings'. They don't 'do this because this happened'. It's a figment of the writer's imagination. If you want to find out why John Smith did action X, ask the damn author, because sure as hell he's the only one who has a true idea about what he's writing, yet most of the time you look so deep into the text the author himself will get the urge to slap you in the face and say 'It's only a book'.

For example, a question that sticks in my mind was 'Crooks is introduced in Chapter 4. Why do you think Steinbeck put him into the story?' I don't bloody know, do I? Do I look like I have an inside-out knowledge of Steinbeck's brain complex? I don't think he knows anymore either, seeing as he died about forty years ago. Secondly, why should I care? Why should I care about the (no doubt, very deep) reasoning behind adding a character to some dumb book? How does this improve my understanding of the story? These are all questions you should ask next time you decide to write a 3 page essay on a stupid question about a stupid book. Hopefully pondering this will give you the courage to actually ask your teacher why the hell the subject is on the curriculum, and how it can ever cross anyone's mind to decide to teach this rubbish for the next twenty years. I appreciate that a knowledge of famous literature can help you in some abstract ways, but apart from getting that extra point in your local pub quiz, I see no point in relentlessly poring over these century-old novels and trying to pick out every single meaning behind every single line said by every single character. It's pointless, and stupid.

What skills do you hone when studying this subject? Reading? 'Book Analysis'? I'll tell you what skills you hone with this subject. To make it easier, here it is in list form:


1.


If I want to improve my reading skills, It's none of the curriculum's business how I do it. I read the paper. I read the internet. I occaisonally read books. I do not spend two+ years going through a rainforest of paper to come to one conclusion: Why the hell am I doing this?

Up yours, English Literature.

This is so very true. Every book I've read in school is dampened by the excessive analyzing of a novel which would leave much more of a learning experience if taken as a whole, as the author intended, without a binder full of explanations and no one should attempt to spew out the "definitive" right answer to ANY of those questions because the author wrote it, not them!

BUT IT IS SUCH A FUN SUBJECT. Can none of you see the fun? ;__;
I find it so easy in comparison to every other subject. All you have to do is make connotations and PEE! (point. example. explanation) simple ;;

I could always pee at home though.

[Zeldy]

Simple, yet mind numbingly boring. And the fact that the examiner has a mark scheme which marks you right or wrong on how you personally interpret the book, is stupid.

Maybe it's just a female thing. The only people who were actually interested in the subject iirc were girls, the rest of us slept.

Not necessarily, cause I know examiner's and teachers support you to put down your own ideas, so I find them having a marking scheme quite ludicrous and I don't believe you! It's marked on how you've explained yourself, and what points you have made. You could say that a character adds depth but someone else could say it adds humour and how could an examiner say which is right without being one sided?

What about poetry? I bet you read your Anthology every night ;D

[Old Manus]

My teacher didn't let me put down my own ideas. Mainly cause I tended to take the piss a bit in my answers.

And Jesus, don't even get me started on poetry. English Lit is like getting high compared to studying poetry. Good lord, it sends shivers down my e-spine.