3 Speeches Wtffffff (1 Viewer)

[ElGronko]

don't you mean sarcasm

No, i mean irony.

Did you notice the quote of yours i put in bold?

I understand that you are a bit slow dear girl, so just take your time...use a dictionary if you have to...it's okay, no one thinks any less of you for your many, many faults and flaws.

 

[Yaz88]

no sorry i didnt, for what you have to say is worthless...

 

[ameradrian]

by the way ameradrian A and B conversation so how about you butt ur fat head out..
jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez
im so sick of these rejects posting their opinions when its not wanted.....
please throw yourself of a cliff to better the world...

Although it is very hard to understand what you're trying to say here, I assume you mean it is an argument between you and Egronk only.

Well sorry but you are arguing on a public forum...That means everything you say is open to scrunity. So in fact its not "A and B" conversion.

Also if I did decide to throw myself off a cliff, it wouldn't "better the world" from your perspective it would make the world better.

Once again, thanks for trying, but no. I really feel sorry for you.

The irony is that you tell people they are idiots, when you are struggling to string a statement together that actually makes sense...on an English forum.

 

[lourai*87]

Damn, ohh well, it was sure to happen sooner or later.

You seem intelligent enough, when i have been truly served by someone (ie. not a bunch of repetitive, boring and unrelated insults), i give respect where respect is due, and in this case I take my hat off to you.

Well played.

Merci beaucoup =p All the best with the rest of them hey..sure you'll manage quite alright

 

[Homercles]

Everyone seems to assume that it's harder to learn a novel than the speeches. I studied 5 speeches in depth, Lincoln, Keating, King, Socrates and Pearson and I can assure you that there was a hell of a lot more to study and remember than there was for Ballard's "Empire of the Sun." The thing is that when you're asked to write an essay about a novel, you only really focus on certain bits and techniques, while in speeches they expect you to know just about everything about a given speech. Also, have you seen the speeches booklet? The pages are much bigger than those of a novel, and some of the speeches, Cicero in particular, may as well be novels anyway.

The specification of 3 speeches actually suited me but I can understand that others were unsettled. If a lot of those who studied speeches lost marks because of this, does that mean they'll mark the essay easier? I know in the sciences that if everyone stuffed up a question they go back and consider adjusting the severity of the marking.

I did Adv. English through Distance Ed and my teacher basically told me to know all the speeches reasonably well. It is perhaps a bit ironic that I've been given better advice than that apparently given out by all the selective schools in Sydney.

 

[phemale_souljah]

If a lot of those who studied speeches lost marks because of this, does that mean they'll mark the essay easier?

I did Adv. English through Distance Ed and my teacher basically told me to know all the speeches reasonably well. It is perhaps a bit ironic that I've been given better advice than that apparently given out by all the selective schools in Sydney.

I doubt they'll mark the essays 'easier' I mean we were studying the speeches as a text, in its entirety, so i doubt they'll be lenient on people who were only prepared to respond to a third or less of our given text.

Which selective schools are you referring to? I can assure you that the advice given at my school was spot on; 'be prepared to respond to the question if it asks specifically about one particular speech' thus ensuring we learn each and every speech indepth.

 

[miapants]

if the vast majority of people fuck up a question, then the standard will be lower, and so scaling will sort it out anyway. instead of bitching at each other on a lameo forum, why don't you guys go study? that's a novel concept

 

[phemale_souljah]

not as novel as the art form of procrastination lol
people chucking a sook about prep for only a quarter of the course is far more exciting then extension english...ooohhh the heterogeneous concept that is genre!

 

[xbitterflyx]

Whoever said to learn 2 in depth is very very wrong. u had to learn all 12 in case they decided to ask a specific one. But it was still fucked. Y do they have to be assholes. It wasnt enough that u have to write three long essays in 2 hours but they make it even longer. Fuck board of studies. Did u say u stabbed ur english papers with a dagger. DUDE im going to the cliffs at vaucluse and throwing my english book off a cliff. Then going to bondi beach to burn my notes and then piss on them. Then im gonna go back in time, find shakespere, and murder him so nobody ever has to do that gay crap again.

So true... my theory, if I dont give the books back they wont have enough to pass on to the poor saps next year and my school most likely wont buy new ones so hopefully my plan works!

 

[redbloodedwoman]

I think we should be greatfull that BOS didn't poo all over us by nominating a speech and asking us to write a pannel of discussion or something. The nomination of a speech was almost certain and we have always been tought to think of module B - speeches as a whole text, not in terms of speeches as individuals texts within. So to all those who studied TWO speeches in depth and thought they could get away with it, well i have absolutelly no sympathy for you ppl. I am sorry if this sounds cold hearted but some of us did bother to read and analyse these speeches (at leat 3 -4 in depth).

 

[king_malekith]

Get over it

I thikn you're all a bunch of wingers. My teachers had warned us from the very start of the year that we were going to be doing 3 speeches. So if they knew, how come yours didn't. I'm from Bommo High, down on the south coast. Not as if i'm in some fancy 5 star heap in Sydney. So if my teachers could find out, a bit sad that yours couldn't. So have a go at your teachers not the board of studies

 

[borkis04]

I thikn you're all a bunch of wingers. My teachers had warned us from the very start of the year that we were going to be doing 3 speeches. So if they knew, how come yours didn't. I'm from Bommo High, down on the south coast. Not as if i'm in some fancy 5 star heap in Sydney. So if my teachers could find out, a bit sad that yours couldn't. So have a go at your teachers not the board of studies

That is exactly how i think. Stop your winging juju. Trying to bag people out on an internet forum is sad and pointless. Nobody wants to hear YOU winge so dont come on such an open forum to winge, winge, and winge. Nobody wants your two cents here, that is the point i htink Egronk is blatantly making , and i don't see why we should jump off a cliff, meh, but it is true:

WHAT'S DONE IS DONE

and we cannot do anything about it...If you think you fucked up, then its either down to either luck of what you studied (trying to get away with only studying two poems) or your own fault. Winge to yourself.

Good luck all if you have any exams left! I know a few guys have business like I do, so good luck to you guys, and hope you're enjoying your phucken holiday to those who have already finished.

 

[borkis04]

I think we should be greatfull that BOS didn't poo all over us by nominating a speech and asking us to write a pannel of discussion or something. The nomination of a speech was almost certain and we have always been tought to think of module B - speeches as a whole text, not in terms of speeches as individuals texts within. So to all those who studied TWO speeches in depth and thought they could get away with it, well i have absolutelly no sympathy for you ppl. I am sorry if this sounds cold hearted but some of us did bother to read and analyse these speeches (at leat 3 -4 in depth).

Exactly right

 

[rcandelori]

Given the ease of the question, it can only be expected that they ask three speeches. I mean they practically asked "What makes a speech good?" How fucking easy is that....for christ sake....stop whinging. And seeing that juju seems to like prowling these forums with her acerebral rantings, she would have had enough time prior to the exam to see what others were saying about speeches. Misinformation is not an excuse given the breadth of resources available to you. So put up and shut up, you silly bitch.

 

[Abbeygale]

I was really happy that they asked for three texts. A harder question is always in the best interest of those who work harder- an easy question is a level playing field.

I'm pleased with the specification of three texts because it rewarded those who studied the module as it was intended to be studied, and studied all of them, and screwed those who went the lazy way and only studied two.

If a HSC marker told you to only study two, that was exceptionally irresponsible of him. But it's still silly to take that at face value- if there's even the remotest possibility, you should cover your ass, and it's not the BOS' fault you didn't do so.

And as for the Speeches module being significantly harder than the other options, I don't really think so. Sure, you need to know twelve texts with twelve contexts (eleven contexts really, since everyone should already know Atwood's context from AOS). But when comparing that to King Lear, etc, people tend to leave off that you also need to be familiar with 2/3 interpretations/adaptations. This takes up a huge amount of time, watching productions. Our school actually switched from Lear to Speeches because they felt the Lear option was too labour intensive.

Flame away.