Using "+" instead of "'and" (2 Viewers)

[AsyLum]

hahhaha


1337 haxx0rz m4t3!!!

 

[ND]

Originally posted by ezzy85
whats everyone doing for ros and guil? full name first and then ros and guil after that or is anyone using r and g?

I use R+G.

 

[Maddy]

I'm using R&G, my teacher said that is ok after you have specified that that is what you are gonna call it from there on

 

[iambored]

Originally posted by Loz#1
Are we allowed to do that? Coz I am not writing Rosencrantz AND Guildenstern over and over.

yeah, if you write the full think fisrt, and then put in brackets what u will refer to is as (maybe RAG) then you can refer to it as RAG throughout the essay


and u shouldn't use abbreviations

 

[Lazarus]

The style we use for law assignments in uni is:

In the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (hereafter "R&G"), the concept of...

 

[AsyLum]

Originally posted by Lazarus
The style we use for law assignments in uni is:

In the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (hereafter "R&G"), the concept of...

yeah thats what our history taught us to use so im using that

 

[ssj_goku]

Originally posted by narrator
again, i must ask you to stop manipulating what i say, can't you reply without doing that?
if you'll direct your attention to the original question, you'll see that it asks whether it's ok, not whether it's acceptable by bos. i have simply commented on both issues, i think that in terms of the exams you'll get away with it, but that doesn't make it ok to do.
my point was that if you really can't get a band 6 without those 'few extra seconds' then you're probably not worth a band 6, maximising or not

I'd try to reply without manipulating your words, but you just make it so damn easy! Consider it payback for manipulating the line of arguments across this thread. Nearly all replies bar yours are about BOS acceptability and the original q didn't really specify. At any rate, this is an eng adv thread not an eng thread, therefore BOS acceptability=english acceptability. Just call it a sympton of the perspectivism of postmodernism, or whatever lets you sleep at night. In fact, perhaps they'll even be applauding people for using +'s. The Bos after all does like a bit of pomo, so maybe they'll see it and say, "wow, he's subverting our old literary cliches and developing new avenues of expression- 20+". Finally, as you're teacher herself said, there's band 6's and there's band 6's. Maximising time allows a student to maximise their score, and you're comment is really nothing but an assertion.

 

[anti]

The generally accepted standard (as far as I can tell) is to write the name of the text out IN FULL once (it'll probably be in the first paragraph) and then put the abbreviation you're going to use in parentheses () after it. Then refer to it from then on as that abbreviation and that abbreviation only. Use normal highlighting methods for the text, (underlining for texts, quotes for poetry etc)

For example:
_King Lear_ (KL) is a very long and boring text by a very dead and boring person. KL examines how bored unruly children become poor leaders.

 

[anti]

and + isn't an english symbol, so don't use it.

Actually, I would never use & in an essay unless it's the name of a text (R&G). 'and' is three letters, what's so hard about writing them?

 

[ssj_goku]

Originally posted by narrator
thank you for agreeing with me, the question didn't specify and as for other people talking about bos, well i'm an individual.

secondly, calm down, no need to get so worked up.

my point was that if the only way you can get band six, or whatever you want your highest score to be, is by those few extra seconds that you save, you probably don't deserve a band 6 to begin with.
i think that using +s is poor english, especially in an english exam, it's my personal opinion, no need to be so aggressive about it

I must say I really enjoy these little exchanges of ours narrator. Furthermore, congrats on trying to twist my argument against me, but in the words of Wil Smith "You know what the difference is between you and me-I make this look good". The main prob with your argument is that it shares the flaw of so many of the worst sci-fi shows, a lack of continuity. You said I was being aggressive in attacking your personal views. In case you forgot, you originally attacked my comment and tried to oppress my freedom of speech. I'm not really agressive when it comes to arguing, but when someone knocks on my door and asks to dance, I dance dammit!
You also said that you talking about eng as opposed to the bos eng is ok, since your an individual and the original q wasn't that clear. Well, even if you did ignore all the other replies you should realise that I never corrected you on this. You're the one who told me that this isn't about the bos (without regard to my opinion I might add). I was simply responding by saying that if one of us is on the wrong train, its you, but once again, you started it. As for your main point, I appologise if you believe I misconstrued it, you change it so often its hard to keep track. I'm simply saying that the question of deserving or not deserving is rather subjective. I could say that if you can't get full marks in a response in half the allocated time you're undeserving, but that would just be me. The only factual indicator as to wether or not you deserve a band 6 is wether you get one, so if being efficient helps to maximise the mark, then its all well deserved.

 

[ssj_goku]

Originally posted by narrator
calm down ssj_goku, by the way anti, i agree that as long as you make it clear in the beginning then it's ok

I am calm. It was a calm rant. If you agree with anti then why the heck did you argue with my original post which WAS purely about title contractions, and I did specifiy later on that you should make the contraction known (by using the full thing the first time)?

 

[iambored]

Originally posted by anti
and + isn't an english symbol, so don't use it.

Actually, I would never use & in an essay unless it's the name of a text (R&G). 'and' is three letters, what's so hard about writing them?

and if you write it in running writing it's quick enough

 

[karl]

Originally posted by narrator
it's not fine, in fact it's poor grammer,

Irony.

 

[narrator]

Originally posted by karl
Irony.

i was waitin for that

 

[narrator]

Originally posted by ssj_goku
I am calm. It was a calm rant. If you agree with anti then why the heck did you argue with my original post which WAS purely about title contractions, and I did specifiy later on that you should make the contraction known (by using the full thing the first time)?

if you didn't notice, i was arguing about the use of +s in work, check your first post, you say it's fine to do that, that's what i've been against. your sirst post was never pureely about contractions.

the thing is, i have the decency to read your posts before replying, yet you don't seem to read them yourself

 

[ssj_goku]

Originally posted by narrator
if you didn't notice, i was arguing about the use of +s in work, check your first post, you say it's fine to do that, that's what i've been against. your sirst post was never pureely about contractions.

the thing is, i have the decency to read your posts before replying, yet you don't seem to read them yourself

I apologise profusely. My first post and main argument were mainly based on title contractions as opposed to entirely based on title contractions. Nevertheless, that contradiction in degree is nowhere near as dastardly as the plethora of blatant contradictions in case I've spotted in your argument. Furthermore, if you were reading my argument then you would know that I said the same arguments really applied to each. Title contractions are the same level of grammatic blasphemy as using and abbreviations. Perhaps if and (henceforth known as +) was used to justify you would be happy? Maybe if we used A to replace and instead of +? I'm very impressed that you're able to read, now try reading between the lines.

 

[narrator]

Originally posted by ssj_goku
I apologise profusely. My first post and main argument were mainly based on title contractions as opposed to entirely based on title contractions. Nevertheless, that contradiction in degree is nowhere near as dastardly as the plethora of blatant contradictions in case I've spotted in your argument. Furthermore, if you were reading my argument then you would know that I said the same arguments really applied to each. Title contractions are the same level of grammatic blasphemy as using and abbreviations. Perhaps if and (henceforth known as +) was used to justify you would be happy? Maybe if we used A to replace and instead of +? I'm very impressed that you're able to read, now try reading between the lines.

how can you say it was mainly based on either, your first post was one line and looked at to issues, half a line each!

please stop getting so worked up, take a chill pill and stop being such an ass, you're not in a debate here, you get so personal.

i feel that title contractions and word contractions are two different things, title contractions are understandable, but i disagree that +s should be used, your logic here applies, we could substitute any word for any figure or symbol. the point with title contrations is to make the exam process fairer, porple who have studied texts with longer names are at the same advantage as those studying texts with shorter names, +s have nothing to do with it.

 

[ssj_goku]

Originally posted by narrator
how can you say it was mainly based on either, your first post was one line and looked at to issues, half a line each!

please stop getting so worked up, take a chill pill and stop being such an ass, you're not in a debate here, you get so personal.

i feel that title contractions and word contractions are two different things, title contractions are understandable, but i disagree that +s should be used, your logic here applies, we could substitute any word for any figure or symbol. the point with title contrations is to make the exam process fairer, porple who have studied texts with longer names are at the same advantage as those studying texts with shorter names, +s have nothing to do with it.

First of all, you're the one who'se been stalking me and attacking all my posts, you're the aggressor here. Furthermore, I didn't reveal my major focus for an arg or two afterwords, and you can hardly talk as yours didn't come out definitively till about the 2nd or 3rd page. Anyway, your belief that title contractions promote fairness is rubbish. Not many texts have titles that are 2-3 letters long, so it makes things just as unfair for people doing the other texts. It also isn't effective as an equaliser as its not widely used, therefore it only helps the small majority who use it. Furthermore, it is not my logic that we can substitute any word for any symbol, but it did seem to be yours for most of this argument. Don't you have plays to write?

 

[manta]

I personally think there's nothing wrong with using +'s. It's only a filler and I use it in all subjects and no teacher has ever told me not to use it. Even my english teacher who has marked HSC stuff before.... Plus isn't the essays etc more about content and the way you express your ideas and not on +'s and abbreviation?? Either way some of the band 6 answers hardly seem worth a band 6 mark anyway, so I dunno what your all getting worked up about... its a + for goodness sake!

 

[MrMiK]

I think the only prob with it is that a marker MAY see your "+" and feel you are avoiding the spelling of a 3 letter word (even tho its REAL obvious u can spell past it)
apparently.. if i remember correctly, if you mis spell a small word like that, you cant like.. raise above a band.. 2? maybe..?
cant remember
im gona b safe and write it out. A - N - D gee.. heaps hard ay.