General Chatter (1 Viewer)

p342i

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
60
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: It's over! atleast for me >_>

Both sections were great; I found it definetly worth reading over the source and quote three times, then spending 10 minutes planning.

I still got 16 pages out for Section 1: and 14 pages for section 2 (8 words per line)

A good exam to finish on.
 

Master Gopher

Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
87
Location
Lost
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

Yep that bugged me so bad, probably spent about 5 minutes turning pages to spell her name... could have just called it "the Source" I guess, but exams kind of scramble your brain... that do be my excuse :cool:

Otherwise, nice straightforward exam I thought. And I loved the fish metaphor.
 

thenothing

no member
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Messages
252
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

rjharley said:
the questions were straight forward. question one they told u that it was about aims and purposes u didnt even have to extract it from the source, which made it easier, and the source was straightforward. the second question was the most broad thing i have ever seen, so u could pretty much talk about any historical debate and get away with it. for those who are asking what fish has to do with anything, ever heard of a metaphor?? ill let those people ponder on this for a moment....
Uhm! dood, I really hope you talked about the debate you did in class and not your project.

And, because you're obviously incapable of using grammar, I think you're probably going to fail anyway. And anyone who talked about fish and said it wasn't a metaphor was *joking*.
 

nessyfreak

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
41
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

i agree, the guy that made this post is really up himself. congratulations on identifying the fish as a metaphor, give yourself a medal if you need to but dont make assumptions about other people dickhead.

anyway, we learnt about Clendinnen in our case study (aztecs) so as soon as reading time started two of us started laughing (including me) lol.
it was so weird because from that source she appeared to be like an empiracist but from our case study she really isnt... so my question one and 2 were so different when talking about her!
i got a bit muddled in the exam because i was trying to work out what to write but i think i did alright in the end... much better than the trial.
1 more exam to go!
 

Nelsonian

New Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
18
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

I was wondering if it was about some historian called John West and the fish he rejected at some remote dock in Alaska. It never occured to me that a metaphor was what I was looking at. Imagine my disappointment when discussing the catch of the day with other fisherman and finding out the bad news...I felt gutted. Fancy using a quote from Carr like that. I never liked him as Premier anyway, but I was completely unaware that he was into fishing. Perhaps I should have looked at it all from another angle.
 
Last edited:

nessyfreak

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
41
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

Nelsonian said:
I was wondering if it was about some historian called John West and the fish he rejected at some remote dock in Alaska. It never occured to me that a metaphor was what I was looking at. Imagine my disappointment when discussing the catch of the day with other fisherman and finding out the bad news...I felt gutted. Fancy using a quote from Carr like that. I never liked him as Premier anyway, but I was completely unaware that he was into fishing. Perhaps I should have loked at it all from another angle.

LOL!! GOOD CALL!
 

Eusebius

Oxford Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
38
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

hotChoklat said:
i hope i did the right thing by sayin she had a view of history's purpose as being empirical but oath did that have to be the worst name to have to refer to...clendillen, clendellen...wtf?!? i give up

The historians name always seem to be a weird one, the worst is when you get a source written by two historians, BOTH WITH FUNNY NAMES!
 

thenothing

no member
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Messages
252
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

I knew Clendinnen was a post modernist, and was going to use her in the essay anyway, I wasn't surprised they used her for the source.

I quoted her outside the source as well, from The Boyer Lectures.
 

nallask8r

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
44
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

thenothing said:
I knew Clendinnen was a post modernist, and was going to use her in the essay anyway, I wasn't surprised they used her for the source.

I quoted her outside the source as well, from The Boyer Lectures.
From the source she wasnt a post-modernist at all. clearly a modernist telling us all the stuff history can offer us. Anyways im a bit worried, you know how it says to make a judgement, wat did that mean? Of course in my response i indirectly said whose perspective was different etc. But did you have to literally say "Therefore i believe blah blah blah".
 

SL33pY

ceo of the banana factory
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
68
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

Nelsonian said:
I was wondering if it was about some historian called John West and the fish he rejected at some remote dock in Alaska. It never occured to me that a metaphor was what I was looking at. Imagine my disappointment when discussing the catch of the day with other fisherman and finding out the bad news...I felt gutted. Fancy using a quote from Carr like that. I never liked him as Premier anyway, but I was completely unaware that he was into fishing. Perhaps I should have looked at it all from another angle.
ROFLMOA!! brilliant :D
 

Asheroth

Paranoid Android
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
219
Location
In the Aeroplane Over the Sea
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: It's over! atleast for me >_>

bobness said:
(i.e. people say subjectivity when COME ON its more about how facts aren't "historical facts" until the historian uses them or that there is a "prcoess of attrition" before the past is recorded as facts - its in what is history? pg 12-13).

also section 1 i said the woman was a socialist can that be inferred :/ ?
It's not really. It's only about that if you've read What Is History?, which lots of people, me included, haven't. If you don't have the background on Carr to work with, the source is simply about selectivity in the creation of historical writing, and can be widened to deal with bias, anachronism etc. I know Carr's ideas of 'historical facts' but I didn't see them stated in the source - yes, you can infer them by extending the metaphor (they become historical once the historian has 'cleaned' them etc) but the source is hardly MORE about that than it is about selectivity and subjectivity.

I think a certain amount of straw-clutching would be needed to characterise Clendinnen as a socialist, but you might get away with it :D
 

emanuellasker

New Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
18
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
Re: It's over! atleast for me >_>

Hooray I'm finished, what a fabulously easy test!!! 1st section was tops I just explained it bit by bit, then next question Tacitean view of the principate, (the quote given summed up that exactly.) Overall a great test.
 

rickn

New Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
9
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: It's over! atleast for me >_>

dressler said:
source 1 was tough, i couldnt pick up on her main purpose in mass detail...i tried to engage in the idea of empiricism through her quote as an objective analysis with history as a science...hope this works. section 2 wasnt too bad. i didnt find the fish metaphor to ambiguous but in saying that i didnt make as many good points as i probably should have... are you supposed to engage in the source in section 2 as much as you are in section 1?
The question said 2 analyse this interpretation so i would say you have to deal with it in detail but as theres not as much to talk about as in one you would still talk about the source in one more
 

rjharley

New Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
3
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

wow tis amazing how angry some people get if you just make a simple post. and some person replies and tells me i cant use grammar and calls me "dood". i wasnt trying to be up myself actually, and for everyone thinking im claiming the fact that i realised the metaphor, if u bothered to look at some of the other topics, people are asking what the fish source was all about. no i didnt talk about my own research project our case study was thucydides, i just wanted to say what we studied fitted really easily with the questions and i found it to be the easiest exam ive done so far, and just because i say its easy and others dont agree they go crazy at me.

edit: yea have to agree with the people about rewriting clendinnen for the first source though.
 
Last edited:

v_wangnet

New Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
3
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

Nelsonian said:
I was wondering if it was about some historian called John West and the fish he rejected at some remote dock in Alaska. It never occured to me that a metaphor was what I was looking at. Imagine my disappointment when discussing the catch of the day with other fisherman and finding out the bad news...I felt gutted. Fancy using a quote from Carr like that. I never liked him as Premier anyway, but I was completely unaware that he was into fishing. Perhaps I should have looked at it all from another angle.
you, my friend, are funny.
 

ane_st

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
502
Location
Bella Vista
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

Well.. If you knew the content it was an ok test... But i kinda forgot most of my stuff.. I think it was nerves...

And i also thought the the sections could've been swapped around.. I kept seeing aspects of my case study in section1 and vice versa...
 

Bobness

English / Law
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
1,656
Location
Sligo
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: It's over! atleast for me >_>

Asheroth said:
It's not really. It's only about that if you've read What Is History?, which lots of people, me included, haven't. If you don't have the background on Carr to work with, the source is simply about selectivity in the creation of historical writing, and can be widened to deal with bias, anachronism etc. I know Carr's ideas of 'historical facts' but I didn't see them stated in the source - yes, you can infer them by extending the metaphor (they become historical once the historian has 'cleaned' them etc) but the source is hardly MORE about that than it is about selectivity and subjectivity.
sucks to be you then. we are meant to base around the source but (as top answers have done in the past .. go read some standards packages) knowledge of the background of the historian is almost imperative if you want to push that top band

i liked your 'cleaned' facts idea becoming history thats so good with the fish metaphor. i hope you said that in the essay.

otherwise seriously we are not ONLY limited to the source. the syllabus outcomes for history extension also incl. independent and individual investigation so if you knew about what is history (its THE seminal text for history how can more than half the state for hist ext not know it?) it was almost a gift writing a bit about that in the essay
 

eleanor88

New Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
24
Location
Port Macquarie
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
Re: It's over! atleast for me >_>

I forgot to write the name of my case study (Elizabeth I) on the top of my Section II essay!!! Grr, I feel like such a dork.

How dumb can one be?

Oh well, I hope they don't get pissed off about it and mark me shitly.

Elle :)
 

undotwa

New Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
11
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
For the first question, how strictly do you think they'll mark it? Did one have to say "So and so considers historical purpose as such...". My main concern with my essay is that whilst everything was considered in terms of historical purpose, it wasn't explicit. For instance, I spoke at length about historical objectivity and then its effects upon historical purpose (though I don't think I actually used the 'purpose', but rather words like 'aims' and 'end').
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top