Critical Thinking and Analysis

Re: Question of the week

2011-12-11T17:48:00.001+01:00

Unfortunately, I can not participate in the game, as I have finished reading the book as well. But for those who has not, I can only say that there were surprises and story took an interesting turn, however some characters really did things that we have predicted.

My Guesses

2011-12-11T17:40:00.001+01:00

I think Anna had more connection to the Venus than we think she did.
I don't think she really killed herself, there must be some other thing going on based on my previous guess.
The bad guy may be someone we don't even know yet at this point.
It would be nice if Lara went back to Rob in the conclusion.

These are my guesses!

Guesses

2011-12-11T17:13:00.001+01:00

So my guesses: I think Anna may have known something about the ownership history of the Magyar Venus--consider her initial breakdown in the gallery opening, which happened just after Károly mentioned Piper's diaries.
The bad guy, I think, is Frank. He has everyone eating out of his hand in the beginning, and the frequent spying and manipulation on his part seems to have no clear motivation, as opposed to the scheming of Diana or Morgan, for instance, who clearly only want vengeance.
Anna was murdered, in accordance with the above, because she knew something she shouldn't have. She has been said not to be the kind of person, or in the emotional state to kill herself. The death of Kovács was an accident in my mind, entirely his fault.
Károly and Lara's relationship won't last, I don't think. Károly is far too much of a secretive, manipulative man, constantly using his charm to get what he wants--and while right now what he wants is Lara, he will eventually get bored with her. Lara, I think, will end up freshly broken up at the end of the book, framing the story nicely.

Guess Who

2011-12-11T09:37:00.002+01:00

Our CT blogging has come to an end. For the occasion, let us play a game. I have finished reading The Venus Magyar and while there were some surprises, most of the characters did what I expected. So here is what I'd like you to do:

Guess!

What is Anna's connection to the Magyar Venus?
Who is the bad guy?
Was Anna murdered? What about Mihály Kovács?
If, to the previous question, you said yes, then who is the killer?
Will Károly and Lara get together? Will she go back to Rob? Will she die?

Don't say 'I I don't know'. Use your imagination. Guess! :)

Reevaluation

2011-12-04T18:53:00.002+01:00

If I was in Lara's shoes, I'd most likely take a step back and look at my findings from a distance. All the clues that she accumulated are mostly coincidental things, as I've mentioned in class, the most beneficial action would be to go through everything again and try to find a pattern, try to identify the relevant pieces of information.

Re: Question of the week

2011-12-04T17:41:00.002+01:00

Well, if I were Lara, I wouldn't take these obvious things seriously. As a reader, I assume there'll be a great twist in the story. I don't think I could write more on this, that's what I think, detective stories are not my cup of tea.

Taking Sides

2011-12-04T17:26:00.001+01:00

I think it's getting increasingly harder for Lara to stay on the fence regarding everything. Like I said in class, it's inevitable that she is going to have a certain theory once she starts seeing patterns emerge from the info dump, and when she does have a theory, fighting bias to remain objective is not going to help: she is going to be influenced by her preconceptions regardless of whether or not she wants them to.

What I see as the best course of action, then, is to try and prove or disprove an existing theory now that a pattern is emerging. Lara should take the side of the Divas or Károly or Frank, because if she remains on the fence, noone is going to keep trusting her enough to give her the full story.

Re: Question of the Week

2011-12-04T17:07:00.001+01:00

I am not much of a detective, so I have no cluewhat I would do. If I were Lara I would not have started investigating to beginwith. In a mystery story like this it is so apparent that the plot is going toget a very different conclusion that we would think. This controls my thinkingso much that I can't really distance myself from this fact to identify myselfwith her and believe that what I already found out has something to do with thereal background of the events. Perhaps I would just continue investigatingrandom things that pop into my mind with the knowledge that at the end of theday it is going to be pointless anyway.

Re: Question of the week

2011-12-04T15:57:00.001+01:00

It is quite difficult to imagine what would I do, but I assume the main is not to involve many people into your investigation, not to tell many people about your intentions and information you have already gained. As more than 2 people is already a crowd, one can only trust himself in search for truth. Since there are lot of false evidences and irrelevant materials, I would most likely try my best to eliminate useless points. I believe there is only one question in those detective stories, that you need to answer and the puzzle will be completed, that is why I would try to find that question. Whether it is why that night? Why Anna? or may be why was I drugged and not any other girl from the Divas? or why did Charles lie about Magyar Venus? There are so many questions, so I would try to find the one that lays in the bottom of the story.

Borrowed Shoes

2011-12-03T23:26:00.001+01:00

While I do not presume to have the same courage which Lara seems to possess, I hope I can say that I would try to tie up the loose ends; if for nothing else, but for the sake of clearing my conscience and keeping my sanity intact. Therefore, assuming I have not fled after the disastrous wake-up-call and miraculously ended up in Hungary (at the moment I am in Lara’s shoes, therefore, I’m Canadian), I would seize the opportunity to catch the divas with their guards down.

First and foremost, I would not tell them that I am Switzerland in the figurative sense. They do not need to know that I only care for the truth and not for the two sides. Or several sides, as at this point everyone seems to have an agenda with a strong self-interest. Leaving the divas fairly unsuspecting would be the best option until I figure out their motives. I would try to unravel the connection between Anna and the Magyar Venus. Since the divas obviously know far more than they let on, I would love to be a fly (or a cockroach, or, in the worst case scenario, a spider) on the wall of their hotel room while they continue to conspire between (and against) each other. As I am damned to be a non-shape-shifter, a mechanical bug would have to do.

Meanwhile, I would try to use them to find out more about the antique shop owner. He knows that I (khm…, Lara?) know that he knows something, which places him in a vulnerable position. Of course, cornering him could certainly backfire, if he was the lashing out type. Caution is the key word.

Still, Frank remains the likeliest suspect to me, since he handles his drugs rather loosely. A little check out on his personal and business history seems to be in order. If I could find out the nature of his connection to Károly Molnár, I think I would be able to have a huge breakthrough in the case.

However, as I said, I am not Lara. Connecting the dots while reading a mystery novel at my leisure is a fascinating and pleasurable past time. On the other hand, the desperate search for the truth to relieve one’s conscience from the pressure of guilt is far too frightening; therefore, I would like to offer the borrowed shoes back to their true owner, Lara. She does a far more remarkable job as a detective than I anyway.

My question

2011-12-03T14:15:00.001+01:00

If you was in Lara's shoes, what would you do next in the search for the truth ? for example , I would tap the phones ? or bug the the flat and invite a suspect to it.

False Dilemmas and Dogma

2011-11-26T19:13:00.006+01:00

The thinking that one of two results is inevitable is the resultant of existential fear. When a human being views life in an "all or nothing" fashion, he or she is experiencing certainties on a level, and these certainties are the subject matter of the win-lose mindset. The certainty is counter parted by absolute ignorance, and when the individual experiences existential fear of a sheer size, this fear creates an existential certainty to balance it. Modern societies that had fallen victims for the diabolic " Cosmic relativity" has stripped humanity from all sorts of real fears that would create counter certainties. The absence of dogma is an outcome of the absence of the question that requires a dogmatic manual. The "either or" thinking is a natural component of the believing brain, and in a world without faith, this way of thinking is deemed fallible.

Deception

2011-11-21T22:21:00.001+01:00

Deception in general is unethical and may be wrong, but it can have certain benefits. To begin with, you can generate publicity with a good deception, and raise awareness to a topic that would be boring in its original form. A good deception makes its way to history books and becomes immortal in the collective knowledge. Tiny deceptions can eliminate the need for explaining things to people who don't have the necessary skill to understand certain things. With white lies we can give them a simpler explanation.
As far as the list of advantages of deception goes, this is all. In its nature deception is very wrong as all of us have the right for the truth. If deception is allowed on any level, it gives room for us to be lead on to a manipulated society.

Part of the Deal

2011-11-20T18:23:00.001+01:00

Come on, you pansies. Deception is part of the package in any form of communication, and that's an inescapable fact. There will always be people who exploit the inherent ambiguities in language, so the best option for even the most well-meaning public intellectual is to embrace the institution of putting a favorable spin on certain issues beyond compromise. After all, there are radically different viewpoints that no reasonable debate can reconcile; if you honestly believe your truth is the true truth, there will be cases when you'll have to rig the game in your favor or risk a stalemate.

So are you on the side of progress, or do you support the stagnant status quo? Because progress certainly comes with a few dirty shots.

Ignorance is Bliss

2011-11-20T17:16:00.001+01:00

Deception; such an ugly word, full of negative meaning. How could the word deception receive any positive connotation? In the minds of the people it is associated with lies, politics, theft, and all the Evil one can think of. Then how could we give the word a thumb up in any way, especially in journalism?

The only case I can think of deception as a well-intended trick is when those catastrophe movies came to my mind. If there is something big, imagine, for example, aliens, volcanos, apocalypse, whatever; and there is no way that the ordinary people can do a single thing about it, then deception is the only way to not cause or stop the mass panic that would certainly take over the people.

Of course, I might be wrong to hang onto the truth as a lifeline. But being aware of some of the deceptions of my government, of other governments, of past politics, I really wish to know whatever it is there to know. But if I only had one more day to enjoy? I think I would be able to forgive being deceived and calmly believe in the unreal safety and remain blissfully ignorant.

Deception

2011-11-20T16:56:00.002+01:00

Deception universally is bad, however, it can be justified at times. For example, if someone decides to utilize deception in order to reach a goal that is beneficial to all sides, then the end justifies the means. However, it can be problematic to decide how can you differentiate between a generally good outcome or an outcome that is only preferred by a certain side. If we don't take ethics into account, then deception is a great tool of everyday life, a cornerstone of manipulation, if done correctly.

Honesty

2011-11-20T16:26:00.001+01:00

There is no such situation that comes to my mind, when I would say that deception is a positive tool of presenting information. May be we can come up with some in our daily life, but there is nothing positive about deception in journalism. If I am not mistaken the goal of journalists is to serve the truth, even though truth is quite an arguable term. We buy newspapers and magazines not to get dozens of lies but to have some credible facts, especially when weare relentlessly overflowed with all the sorts of information.

The question for this week

2011-11-20T15:10:00.002+01:00

Well, the question for this week is as follows: Do you think deception as such is wrong? What could be the pros of deceiving?

Reliability

2011-10-30T18:43:00.002+01:00

Research is the perfect packaging for presenting believable ideas. Somehow numbers make our text much more believable, but of course, they can be misleading. Exchanging certain words can give your statistics completely different meanings, diagrams can be manipulated, and control groups can be manipulated, just to name a few. We really need to be careful to choose what to accept and what to discard as useless, most of the times we'll choose the research where the group that carried it out is mostly credible. However, they can exploit this reputation, and the cycle continues...

Be Careful What You Believe

2011-10-30T17:26:00.001+01:00

During our university years, we have to do an extensive research to be able to write our assignments. We learn how to structure those essays, how to argue, how to be logical. We tend to think that that is enough. But is it? Sometimes I think that we ignore the basics and while trying to complete our tasks we are just struggling not to drown.

It is easy to say do your research. There are libraries and of course, the internet; it should not be so hard, at least, in theory. However, no one tells us about the way we should choose our resources. Because there are indeed many surveys which cannot be trusted. I strongly believe that there are many of them which were conducted with a desired result already in mind so the facts were used to support the outcome. In many cases, surveys are born from the only reason to give support to the sponsors, who, in response, are very generous with their gratitude. Therefore, how can those results be legit?

At the end of the day, it is up to us to do more research on the research we wish to use to be able to make sure that it was not created with bias.

RE: Question of the week

2011-10-30T17:03:00.004+01:00

There is no such thing as a reliable source. Even if we see a certain event with our own eyes, we can interpret it many different ways. Our opinion depends on our morals, education, critical thinking.

It is especially true when considering information that has been gathered from different sources. Of course there are more and less trustworthy sources, for example, no one believes a gossip magazine, but we tend to believe serious political or social newspapers, or at least we give them credit, even if we don't agree.

We have to decide how credible a source is while doing research. We have to use our critical thinking to gather the right information and be as accurate as we can.

Research is the best out there

2011-10-30T16:19:00.002+01:00

I strongly believe that research materials are not the most reliable sources one can get, but they are obviously the best. Sometimes they distort reality and sometimes they don't. People can't really judge whether a specific research can serve as a sufficient, true evidence to support what we state. This kind of distortion is inevitable, we have to learn how to live with it.

A very significant step, however, one can take in order not to shift to the extremes is comparison. Gathering more sources and comparing them may make the writer's job easier, as it can indeed help the researcher to find the golden mean between all the extremes.

Research as the strongest evidence

2011-10-30T15:58:00.000+01:00

For me research studies are the strongest evidences one can get. I know that they are not flawless as many others, but I strongly believe that these are one of the best evidences out there.

As we discussed, research studies can be biased from many aspects, as they can be manipulated through money, and even the research method can affect the outcome of them. Some results can be presented in a way that the method of presentation alone can mislead audiences.

We have to be careful when supporting our thoughts with research studies. In my opinion the best thing to do is to gather all research results on out subject and carefully inspect them to reveal any biases that may be there. If various research studies have similar counclusion, I believe that is the strongest evidence one can get when dealing with general issues and not a certain case. (What I mean is that obviously in a court case of murder I wouldn't treat a research study a stronger evidence than let's say a DNA sample.)

RE: Question of the Week

2011-10-30T15:29:00.003+01:00

Definitely there are. As wediscussed earlier, reliability depends on the journalist’s choice of sources.It depends on what the writer believes to be true. Does he/she take thecherry-picking approach to suit his/her version of the truth or does he/she tryto compare sources in order to find a middle way?

Question of the week

2011-10-30T14:55:00.001+01:00

We tend to believe that research is the most reliable evidence to prove our statement, but what do you think, are there any biases or distortions in the surveys, questionnaires, ratings, or
other measurements that the researchers use?

Credibility

2011-10-28T09:33:00.004+02:00

Journalists must alley with a certain political trend overtly. Obscure affiliations would make it more difficult for the reader to see the journalist's opinion in practice. Thoughts without a clear proposal of applicationm can be very misleading for the reader and therfore shrinks the credibility of the opinion maker. The vividity of the ideas in action makes them more worthy of considertation.

Authority

2011-10-23T18:42:00.002+02:00

Certainly the importance of appeals to popularity and emotion is huge when it comes to rhetoric in the media, but I feel that the most important one is the appeal to authority, which is often done quite unintentionally. You see your favorite political analyst saying something incredibly stupid, you're much more willing to give his words credit even if you acknowledge the stupidity of his stance. You see the President talking about job creation, you're filled with hope that you'll actually find a place to work. It's basic cognitive bias that is working in you when you're listening to people you think highly of, but it's one of the most easily exploitable errors in thought.

Techniques in media

2011-10-23T17:37:00.000+02:00

As far as I can see, media uses pretty much all of the fallacies that we have discussed in the class. Starting from bringing up questionable authorities, to appeal to emotions. Of course, the most common is appeal to popularity, media has wonderful capacity of convincing masses that certain issue or event is,for example, supported by the majority. Or mentioning someone whose authority is able to shape social opinion. As an example, we can look at the media coverage of the revolution in Libya, and the killing of its former leader, Gaddafi.
I think it is more than normal to be sensitive about certain things. If it was an earthquake that took lives of hundreds of people or even one person, it is normal to use emotions as a tool, to reach out to a bigger societies. When the airplane with the Russian hockey team crashed, and 40 young sportsmen died. I believe, it was reasonable to bring up this sensitive to the whole country issue, in the newspapers and radios - in order to finally convince specialists to ban the airplanes with ancient engine.

Fallacias in the media

2011-10-23T17:31:00.002+02:00

I think the media likes to use fallacies purpose. It's a great way of shaping viewers' opinion. The two main fallacies that can be used to achieve this goal are as follows: the appeal to emotions and the appeal to popularity. People often want to hear what is good for the majority, as they're sometimes too lazy to think twice before makin decisions. It's also well-known that the mass can easily be influenced emotionally, too.

Intentional Fallacies

2011-10-23T17:23:00.005+02:00

In my opinion, the media use all of these fallacies to their advantage. Appeal to popularity and emotion are very common tools of manipulation. If the politicians can use them, why should not the journalists? They easily divert the audience’s attention from the more important issues without them even noticing it. Red Herring is another powerful weapon to hide something. It might be applied the most in every form of communication. Appeal to questionable authority is also a big favorite when one is desperate to persuade.

While these might be the most often used instruments, all fallacies are used in common situations as well as in the media and in politics as well. Our task is to notice them in others and thus eliminate the possibility of being manipulated and recognize it in ourselves, to be able to remain on the paths of logic and etic.

Popular Emotions

2011-10-23T14:31:00.003+02:00

Appeal to popularity and appeal to emotions are definitely the two most commonly used fallacies, simply because they are the most effective ones. The first fallacy works for most people, a lot of people want to agree with the majority (or what they believe the majority thinks), because either they are too weak to form their own opinion, or they simply do not care. The second is also easy to use effectively, every person has emotions, and most people can be controlled by their emotions, there are times when none of us can resist to fall to these fallacies. In the media the balance shifts to the appeal to popularity's side, because appealing to emotions is somewhat pathetic and easily recognizable.

Re: Question of the week

2011-10-23T11:37:00.001+02:00

In my opinion, the media uses the appel to popoularity the most. Many times it tries to set people's minds into thinking that a certain thing is preferred by the majority, while only the media knows that it is not the truth. Appeal to emotion is also widely used, as the media always wants to stir up emotions to make the audience as involved as they can be. It is very often recognizable how the media tries to manipulate people with these techniques. In fact they use each one of them probably.

Question of the week: Chapter 7-8

2011-10-23T00:09:00.003+02:00

Which do you think is the most commonly used fallacy in reasoning? Do you often recognise these 'techniques' in media?

Reasoning

2011-10-21T23:22:00.005+02:00

Although it was a rockin' topic because of being useful, I really disagreed with the fallibility of emotional statements. I believe it's more than acceptable to be sentimental in reasoning coz sentiment affects our judgements positively at times. If u are dead inside and you think it makes you a wise guy, u better have a school degree and live in your academic crippled bubble.

Maslow and Values

2011-10-16T20:18:00.001+02:00

I don't think we have any basis for talking about universal values, as by definition, such values should most probably be applicable to a number of lifeforms and civilizations that are beyond our experience and possibly our comprehension. Values can, however, be racial; not in the social sense of the word, but going by biological race.

No-one can deny the existence of ideas that span multiple cultures and millennia. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism all preach the supremacy of love, even if the details and caveats can be very different; similarly, the concept of freedom is something people have been fighting for as long as others have wanted control. Daniel suggests that these may be biological, cultural, or possibly transcendental by origin; however, I think neither of those is an accurate enough term.

First, let's completely dismiss the notion of transcendental values. It may or may not be true that our world is the way it is by intelligent design, but the reason it's called faith is because it's not supported by facts whatsoever; and more importantly, once we appeal to a supernatural force in our argument, there's nowhere else to go. We cannot analyze the structure, intelligently designed or not, of our society, and won't be able to improve on it. Because let's agree that if some God was the one who designed the human race, they did a pretty sloppy job.

Our remaining options for explaining human values, is biology or culture, but I feel uncomfortable choosing between them. In a sense, I think it's neither, but in other ways, the answer is somewhere between the two, leaning toward biology.

Generally speaking, I think our truly important values stem from our needs. As translated to the Maslow-pyramid, we need food and air and water, but we also need safety, and we need love, we need equality, we need a sense of community as well as a sense of individual identity. Ultimately we need acknowledgement, achievement, and self-actualization.

Not all of these use the same meaning of "need". If we don't have freedom of speech, we will live out our lives just the same, but if we have no air to breathe, we'll be gone in a couple of minutes. Nothing other than the physiological level is a biological necessity; however, all of these needs are beyond being defined by mere culture, as culture is derived from the need for community (and the need for self-actualization).

Before I go off on a tangent about the conflict between these values, let's conclude. It's a pretty long post already. Bye.

2011-10-16T16:55:00.002+02:00

I still think that there is only one universal value. This is life. I said it in class, that from the very beginning humans buried their dead ones, uniquely among other creatures. This is also one thing that makes us different.

I don't see love, care, logic, music, hate or anything else in common. Cultures differ a lot. While people in China are able to live under a complete dictatorship, people in Africa have spiritual kings and people in England don't need a written constitution. We have different religions and different beliefs. We raise our children in a different way and we study different things in school. Everything is different. The only thing we can fight, kill or cry for is life.

I also don't think that having universal values can help humanity. I believe that having different values is a great challenge, a great opportunity to raise attention and keep ourselves busy.

RE: Question of the week

2011-10-16T16:29:00.000+02:00

Values differ from one country to another just as much as food, traditions, parenting methods, languages. Still, there are a few that can be found everywhere on planet Earth.

I think universal values do exist, these are things we are born with, feelings, certain thoughts. They just come naturally. We value family, love, sex, money, health. Some less, some more but these are the main things that rule our lives all over the world.

How important these values are, differs from nation to nation, and it even depends on our own personality. Culture and upbringing play a huge role in our view of the world; just as education and our surroundings.

Values

2011-10-16T16:08:00.000+02:00

I think that there are the universal values; we were taught to see the difference between good things and bad ones, were taught some basic rules of morality that are equal all over the globe. Their interpretation vary from culture to culture, but the rules are still the same: as an example we can take the holy books of all the religions, they teach us basics of universal values. Books are different, cultures are different, bu the messages sent to its readers are the same. I believe, in the modern world of today society would not be able to survive without having universal values in the background.

Universal Values

2011-10-16T13:46:00.002+02:00

I think that a universal value is something that has the same value for all. I do not think, however, that these values are biological, but indeed cultural.
Something has universal value when all people have reason to believe it has value or it is valuable. Nowadays, people's values differ from culture to culture; therefore, it is hard to decide if something is a universal value or not.
I think there a few universal values that have the same significance in every culture, namely pleasure and fertility. I think that these are two constituents that must be present everywhere.

Universal vs Racial Values

2011-10-16T12:34:00.001+02:00

I do not think that there is such a thing as universal value. In the collective consciousness of each and every culture, the so called values have different worth. Emotions like love, respect, and care are viewed in different ways and, therefore, their manifestations cannot be the same.

For example, in Japan, respect in the family is a much more potent component than love. Sentimental emotions do not play such big parts in hierarchic societies. Similarly, while we in Europe (and in the USA as well) view terrorism as a terrible act against humanity, in the Middle-East, it is the normal way of self-protection and protestation.

As we can see, every culture has its own views and values; therefore, we cannot speak about universality. If the whole concept existed, the conflicts in our world would be far fewer and less devastating.

Our inner rulebook

2011-10-15T15:30:00.001+02:00

This may drift off to be some kind of philosophical speculation,so excuse me in advance.

As I see it, there are such things as universal values. I thinkthey are in all of us, but I don't know how they are put there. It has to besome kind of socio-cultural thing, or if we are brave enough to jump a littlebit from the grounds of rationality, they may be things controlled by the “supernatural”.Just take love for example. Today's promiscuous culture seems to have forgottenabout the importance of love. I don't want to sound like a preacher, butclearly, for younger generations nowadays pure enjoyment and has more prioritythan love and commitment. We can blame this on the media or on this and that,but in my opinion, despite all this, deep down we all know that love (in everysense of the word) is one of the most important values that we SHOULD live by.Even those know that who wake up in different beds every morning, or beatsomebody up. How do we know this? Maybe it is biology, ensuring that we staytogether as couples to care for our offspring (if we talk about romantic loveand commitment) or that we don’t harm one another (as general love for fellowhuman beings), or it can be some kind of a principle according to what love isgood in its nature and does good to people.

I think universal values are such things that keep us from harmingeach other and teach us to respect others. We don't always practice them, andwhen we don't, we have that little tickle in our mind that this is not a humanthing to do. We do mischief, but at the end of the day we realize that this isnot how it should be.

Some cultures mistakenly call their beliefs universal values, butwhere we have to look for the real ones, is inside ourselves, deep down, where we remained unspoiled humans.

Question of the Week

2011-10-13T14:14:00.002+02:00

We touched upon this topic in class, but we didn't have the time to elaborate on it; I think this will be an interesting question to blog about. What are your views on universal values (if such things exist)? Are they biological, cultural, or maybe even transcendental? Which is the most important value that is shared across (most) cultures?

Awareness in Complaints

2011-10-09T17:28:00.001+02:00

Our awareness is done in typical Hungarian fashion. We cry when we are happy and we cry when we are sad. We cry out loud complaints when we are displeased with any given situation. Amid all this sea of tears there are much words swimming caustically but true to our tradition, there is no action whatsoever.

Recently we had so many outrageous laws that we should be really happy; we can sob out our desperate anger for years to come! We might be forced out to the streets from the threat of new taxes and mortgages still haven’t paid but on the bright side we sure will be on a healthy diet while dragging our belongings through the newly renamed streets of our Budapest free of its promised Subway 4. The people of the beautiful countryside should be content as well, because although there are still no jobs anywhere and the minority question remains unsolved, they nevertheless have the pure joy of fresh cold air. Here I would like to mention, before I forget it completely due to its utter unimportance that only two people have died yet from hypothermia. No worries, there will be more to come, it’s only October.

While our proudly privileged politicians are kept warm in the coziness of the Parliament and in their not-costly-at-all manors, we, the people of our beloved Hungary, remain aware in our complaints. If we have nothing else left, we can still fill the glass half full with them.

Here we are again

2011-10-09T17:09:00.000+02:00

Here we are again, politics. It is so difficult to judge for me, because i am not even Hungarian. Frankly speaking I am not very familiar with a full picture of events that take place on the Hungarian political arena. So let just say, that government is taking hundreds of laws, approves and disapproves; meanwhile the society only discusses quite few of them, that directly influence majority of population - they debate, go out to demonstrations. When it comes to increase of the income tax, immediately everyone finds time to go and vote, but when it comes to the law that is not directly influencing the majority, then whatever decision has been taken by parliament is the right one. As in the case of homeless people. I believe this story has two sides. We are blaming politicians for not listening to us, meanwhile we do not even pay attention to most of the issues that are being raised.

RE: Question of the week

2011-10-09T16:43:00.004+02:00

People in Hungary don't know a single thing about politics. Most of them don't even take the time to vote once in every four years. This is just sad because it seems like our situation is getting worse day by day. It doesn't matter whether it's FIDESZ or MSZP or anything else, no party seems to be able to fix this country. People are always angry with the current prime minister; they are never satisfied with the actions and decisions of the government. This is partly because they have no clue how hard it is to recover the whole country, to make something out of this mess, and partly because no matter who's in charge, it seems like everyone is stealing the shit out of the public purse. Politicians are wealthier than ever, while people are struggling to get on somehow.

Another big problem is that today’s politics isn’t taught in schools. Children only know what they hear at home, and let’s face it, most of the current population are not well-educated, intellectual families. I am not talking about people in our major cities but hundreds of poor villages’ residents.

Uneducation is a foundational issue we have to solve as soon as possible.

Eradicating misunderstanding

2011-10-09T15:44:00.002+02:00

In a world heading towards rapid intellectual galvanization, the sensitivity involved in journalistic term carving is getting more and more flared up, as the overlapping contexts of similar event s lead to an augmentation of deception. The ability of international media to overcome this phenomena is determined by a single factor, which is education. The meaning is constructed subjectively for each single recipient, and education is only way to build up this very state of individualism. The future of journalism is the future of abstracting the human narrative. And that requires the abstraction of the human experience itself. The only route to that abode is a physical and metaphysical warfare to eliminate all major manifestations of human diversity.

No awareness, no beneficial changes

2011-10-09T15:33:00.001+02:00

I think that most of us are not aware of Hungarian politics whatsoever. Politics is indeed an extremely difficult field to understand. People often see only the surface of what is going on inside governmental devices.
Since we are not able to fully understand politics as such, it is almost impossible to have enough awareness to see what these freshly passed laws are for. People do not have direct influence on politics but they can indirectly control this field. People elect those people who represent who represent citizens' needs.
However, the meaning of disadvantageous and advantageous is rather subjective. What the upper-class think is advantageous may not be as advantageous for the middle-class.
Another problem is that people just do not care politics. If some citizens do want to change or alert the government that passing laws without people's consent is improper then it is hard to carry out. I think Hungarian people should think and work together as a unit in order to find the golden mean between what is advantageous and what is not.

We Gave Them Free Rein

2011-10-09T14:10:00.000+02:00

Whatever laws are being passed in Parliament are done so with the technical consent of the people. There is no way that the people's consent could be requested on a case by case basis for every single piece of legislation. The only way democracy can work on a national scale is indirectly: we elect officials whom we trust to make the right decisions while we each mind our own personal business.

The problem is that apparently, we can't be trusted to give our trust to the right people. The people of Hungary are this deep in their own shit through no one else's fault but their own. Two thirds of the voter base gave a blank check to FIDESZ last election, and there are no takesies-backsies in politics; FIDESZ is entitled to fill out the blanks of the check however they like, and you can count on them cashing it in. We have no legal grounds for protests, because the current government changes legal grounds to fit their immediate needs. The only options we still have are forcing a regime change or sitting this one out.

The first one take a lot of effort, and time out of our daily lives that the average working man cannot spare, especially not in hard times. Revolutions are hardly ever started by those people that have the intellectual facilities, the resources, the right attitude to develop a better system; those people are elsewhere occupied already. We cannot count on the unemployed, the unemployable and the self-employed to do anything but harm to the community, and the people we need in such a movement will not join a cause led by inexcusable dilettantes.

So the more reasonable option is to wait and see whether times will change for the better or if the government will continue turning everything to shit. The blank check expires in 2014, that's my estimate for the time government opposition can have a substantial chance.

Yes, They Can! We Can't

2011-10-09T12:18:00.001+02:00

Oh, boy, the best example has to be the voting in the 8th district... let’s exile homeless people! Cool! Well, the poll was invalid, ’cause almost nobody showed up to vote? Who cares? WE’LL STILL CREATE THAT LAW, ’CAUSE WE CAN. I mean this should’ve been a big deal for all of us, but they have the supermajority in the parliament, they can do it in the 8th district... or anywhere. They can silence everything and anybody they want, nobody talked about this. The thing is that we can’t really stop them. As we have also seen last term, you can’t do anything, there is still no "real" democracy in Hungary at the moment. Based on previous experiences, you can set Budapest on fire, still, nothing will happen. The only thing you can do is drag your miserable *** to the polls every 4 years, then you can shut up and work.

The other issue is that a lot of people don’t care, or even worse, if their party is governing then every decision they make is perfect. Politics can be a lot like religion. In Hungary, people don’t have any political weight, you can write about anything, say anything, go on strike, protest against anything and it will go unnoticed by the parliament or the government. In Hungary’s case (and in other countries in a similar situation) politics shouldn’t be a question of religious like beliefs, it should be an open discussion, with everyday people having a voice. There are two things that we have to strive for: first, people must make their voice heard, whichever side they are on; second, in order to do this, we must change the political culture and political elite, otherwise we are in big trouble.

Political Awareness

2011-10-09T07:57:00.002+02:00

I don't think that most of the Hungarians understand politics at all. They don't even care. It is really an effort to learn how it works and then the next challenge is to stay updated.

Once there was a wild idea about requiring the citizenship test in order to have a vote. This had just one serious problem; it is a fundamental right in a democracy to have a vote and there can be no 'intellectual' control over this right but passing the right age and not having criminal background, more or less. But this idea I think is amazing. If I was the Queen of my little Kingdom, I would require everybody to pass a citizenship test.

People are not willing to understand politics, not only in Hungary but this is the case .everywhere else in the world. I hope with better citizenship education in schools we will be able to overcome this.

A parliamentary question

2011-10-08T22:33:00.000+02:00

Politics is always aproblematic field. Politics in Hungary is like stepping into a pit full ofsnakes. It is hard to understand why is it that Hungarian people stand thethings going on presently, as I sometimes wonder about this myself, but can'tseem to find an answer. In my view, people in Hungary got used to the previoussystem too much. Back then it was the question of life and death to expressyour opinion. Progression is that now we don't have to suspect our neighbor ofbeing a sneak. (Or do we?) Why was it then, when Ferenc Gyurcsány's speech gotpublished that a spontaneous revolution occurred in the matter of hours? Iwould also like to know.

I'm sure, that if Hungarianpeople know what they are angry about, it's not because of profound criticalthinking. It's just because they like to be angry and when they want to be,they usually find something to be angry about. In the impossible case of findingnothing, they always have some spare Jolly Jokers up their sleeve. Give themsome tips and they will follow with pure hate.

The thing is that when someonetries to make a change Hungarians hate them also. To unite is as impossible forHungarians as solving a Rubik’s cube is for a snail. Except when they candestroy some property. Be it private or public.

(Sorry for my tone, Iknow it's not professional, but I can't write in any other way about a politicsrelated topic.)

Question of the Week

2011-10-07T09:58:00.000+02:00

The government in Hungary is passing laws without the consent of the people. Even tough, people complain about the changes, no real action is taken to stop them. Do you think people have enough awareness of why the changes are made or how they could prevent the government from passing disadvantageous modifications?

2011-10-02T18:08:00.000+02:00

Some of the daily life situations require from us to apply some set of analytical skills. However, most of the time we tend to judge based on our subjective opinions, tastes and preconceptions. If it comes to the neighbor, that Daniel mentioned, I would not be bothered to analyze his whole life, rather just jump into conclusion and have my opinion formed straight away. The neighbor is not relevant to our lives, so we just judge for pleasure, so to say. But when it comes to serious issues that requires our direct involvement, that is where we are so eager to think critically. Would like to say that once we have learned to analyze, that would probably open us a bigger picture and enable to decide if the issue is even worth of critical thinking.

RE: Question of the week

2011-10-02T17:59:00.001+02:00

We are definitely living in a critical society; not only we judge individuals but the whole system, the society, the leaders and their ideas, everything. Critical thinking would be useful in everyday life but I don’t see how it could possibly change human nature. There are people who are more judgmental than others, and also there are people who don’t really care much about anything. Of course, we should think before we judge or criticize, in order to prevent awkward situations, misunderstandings and hurting other people. Sometimes we hate certain people (or groups of people) for absolutely no reason, other than that’s how we’ve been raised since the day we were born. Also, there are parents who teach their children not to hate anyone just because they are from a different race or they look/speak/think/smell differently. These parents are not necessary critical thinkers, they just have a different view on life.

So maybe critical thinking is more related to questioning yourself whether to agree or disagree with others; to be able to explain to yourself why you’re thinking what you’re thinking. Why do some people have prejudices towards these groups? Why are some of us this full of hate?

People are not critical...

2011-10-02T17:55:00.003+02:00

I do not think the society we live in is critical enough. That may be the reason people can be manipulated easily, sometimes by using powerful words. Manipulation may cause people to be prejudical; however, prejudices can be based on experiences, too.

Critical thinking is not a basic skill we are all born with. We need to learn it and use it properly. In our world, many people forget to ask questions when receiving information. They just accept as it is, which is a tremendously vast mistake.

If people could apply critical thinkin in everyday life, many problems would disappear. Some problems were less severe, if we could answer the "why" and the "how."

In Search for the Key

2011-10-02T17:42:00.001+02:00

Sure, we live in a very critical society. One is judged by one’s appearance, background, education, job, social status, manners and race. Just to mention a few. But this type of criticism does not involve critical thinking at all. If it would, the word judgment wouldn’t hold any negative connotation. Our critical society does not employ critical thinking at all.

On the other hand, I do not think that the lack of critical thinking is the sole cause of prejudice and hatred. People are afraid of the unknown and they label different as something obscure. Instead of gaining knowledge, they comfortably lie back and hate in ignorance. It is a kind of stupidity that could be cured by critical thinking. Of course, if people made the effort…

Critical thinking would help to take several steps ahead but would not solve the overall situation at hand; in other words, it would only give us a chance to leave the blind hatred behind and learn with open eyes. However, to eliminate all prejudices we need to have an open heart as well. For that, I do not believe that critical thinking is the key.

2011-10-02T17:26:00.002+02:00

What Daniel says, that our society seems to be critical and uncritical at the same time in a very strange example of cognitive dissonance, is very true in my eyes. The root of this is not in seeking entertainment, though. This current state is the product of the propaganda machine designed to train humanity for conscious life.

For as far back as the Renaissance, or even further down the time line, there has been a strong focus on the individual, a drive to exploit the full potential of the human intellect. This process has taken us through many diverse stages of enlightenment, and today we have reached a point where critical thinking is widely accepted as an ability everyone needs to possess.

However, this goes only as far as the common wisdom of "you need to be critical". What people don't realize, because they don't care about meta-discussions about criticism, is that in order to be able to apply criticism in a constructive fashion, prior analysis has to be done. This lack of analysis, this lack of observation before judgment drives people to make arguments that they don't fully understand. We live in transitional times: everyone has opinions, but only a few, if any, have the facts to back them up.

There's a reason this class is called Critical Thinking and Analysis. It's not just one or the other: the two are complementary--even if the right order is the other way around. So please, before making a judgment call, make sure you know what you're talking about.

Let's Criticize, It's Fun!

2011-10-02T11:20:00.004+02:00

Are we living in a critical society? In a way, yes. In many other ways, no. We tend to be overly critical with other people’s everyday issues. "Why didn’t that *censored* neighbor mow his lawn? " – or – "See how that loser’s hair looks? He must think he is living in the ’80s!" Panem et circenses, this definitely fits the circenses part, we entertain ourselves by criticizing others, the less important the issue is the better we feel about our "critical thinking”. When talking about critical thinking regarding important matters, well, we don’t fare that well in that aspect...

The lack of critical thinking is definitely part of our prejudices, but I think that it’s rooted more deeply in human culture. It’s been going on for several millennia, and it will never be fully cleansed, because it’s an element of our survival instincts, it’s biology, people! Only thing is that it transcended that survival thingy, now it’s the basis of our hatred towards certain groups. Critical thinking could help, but it’s not something that we will ever purge from our collective consciousness.

P.S. I made that '80s reference up just so I could post this song, a little entertainment for your weary souls after blogging - http://youtu.be/xjyKRRJQEpU

Re: Gergő's QW

2011-09-30T14:13:00.004+02:00

Oursociety if definitely critical, but rather in a sense that it likes tocriticize its own members. Politics and religion enforce prejudice and hatred.Maybe not consciously, still the fractions of our society start pointing ateach other. Friends, even families, feud as the importance of being differentis over emphasized.

Ifeel it wouldn’t change the attitude towards prejudice if everybody would beable to fully use their critical thinking skills. If we consider the periodfrom the middle ages until today, it is safe to say that people became moreaware of global issues, racism and where it leads. Still, there are wars for money;there is prejudice and hatred.

Question of the week

2011-09-28T16:18:00.000+02:00

My question for this week will be:

Arewe living in a critical society? Is the lack of critical thinking responsible for prejudice and hatred towards certain groups? What would it change if we were all able to fully use our critical thinking skills?

2011-09-25T18:08:00.001+02:00

I would like not make comments about leaders becoming monsters. The reason for that is very simple, people tend to put labels very easily when someone does not fulfill the expectations.
In times of turmoil every society needs a leader. Unable to speak up for ourselves, we rely on other people to give us our own voice back, to fight our battles, to have enough strength to protect our interests. Fear and lack of confidence enable a person/group of people with certain set of skills to take control over the situation. We may call them monsters, we may call them geniuses, but the truth is that all the leaders need to be dictators to a certain extend. Otherwise, even perfect democracy will not last for long.

Re: DWCLOM

2011-09-25T17:13:00.002+02:00

I share Orsi's point that we are not good at organizing. We are doing a terrible job most of the time when it comes to decisions and order.

It is not the society that creates the monters, it is the job and the daily habit. They have to decide and do the most important things instead of us. It is like counting money all day long but not bringing home any. They can touch it, feel it.

Those in power are able to change. After a while, change is becoming easy. Change is becoming boring. We all need some challenge. I believe our leaders, most of them, are sick of their power. Not only politicians but simple group leaders. If you do it for a long while, you'll get sick of it. You need to bring change and challenge at the same time. This is really dangerous.

We are all born free and equal. However, when we grow up all of us can turn into a monster. This is our job to take care and be always that person we used to be. Nothing more, nothing less.

Knowledge is power

2011-09-25T16:22:00.001+02:00

My entry won’t be much of a buzz, since I share Orsi’s opinion in mostly every aspect. It takes courage to stand up against whatever is coming your way, to express your dissent, to not be one of the sheep. (Yes, the famous sheep.) All kinds of dictators have these qualities in common. It doesn’t matter whether they are monsters or leaders, who cares, really. They have the ability to lead an entire nation, which is, let’s face it, quite creditable. But they would never be able to do so without our help and support. The problem is, once they feel the power in their hands, it is inevitable that leaders somewhat become monsters; that is how the two become one. And soon those hands start getting real dirty. It doesn’t take much to frighten an entire community, as it was mentioned before; then comes the desperate search for the ideal person who could help the situation with empty promises and useless speeches. People can be tricked, can be fooled, convinced and mislead. People are weak when it comes to actually fighting for something they want. Discovering this incapacity is a great knowledge, and, knowledge is power; this is how leaders are born.

So my friends, I suggest you start planning your way out of a sudden crisis as soon as you can, because you never know when your Z’s going to fall off.

Re: DWCLOM

2011-09-25T15:23:00.002+02:00

What I reckon is that societies do not always want someone to lead, someone to control the community. However, it is the situation that makes certain people stand out and be a leader or a monster.
At first, a leader usually wants to convince its followers that what is done is indeed what is good for the whole society. Since everything that is beneficial is done for the sake of the community, it is no doubt whether the society considers the leader a monster or not. Of course, the answer is "no."
We are all human beings, therefore we always want more and more no matter if it is possible or not; it is coded in our DNA. People trust leaders as they need hope, they need something to believe in. Therefore, leaders start out as reasonable people, yet lust for power blinds them to what they are actually becoming.
After a while, all leaders become monsters. As we create the situation that requires a leader to take control over, we create the monsters as well. We actually give them the opportunity to rise up.

We Are All Monsters

2011-09-25T14:05:00.004+02:00

We do not create monsters, we are all natural born monsters, only some of us are better at or put more work into hiding it. Every monster is waiting, planning, scheming, and lurking in the dark corners of our minds until the opportunity arises for it to take over us.

Greed is the biggest factor in becoming a beast, we all want more money, a bigger house, a better car, a faster computer, and a better grade; but again, it is all natural, it’s an instinct, it was necessary (or maybe still is) to survive. The problem starts with the way probably every type of group works. It needs a leader, or at least some rules to keep everyone safe and calm. But above a certain number of people, “pure” democracy is unable to work, you need a leader or some kind of a leadership to keep it all together; 10 million people voting on every little proposal is not too effective, so to say. If you are in a position to exploit the system as a leader or as one of his/her lackeys, chances are that you will do it. Why, because you are a bad person? No, simply because you are a human. We would all do the same to some extent, let’s admit it. With the bigger your power is, the greater your greed will grow, until it takes over you, because you falsely feel safe and confident with what you’re doing. Nothing can happen to you. You know, it’s always someone else. And the thing is that sometimes you can get away with it. You just have to be clever.

All in all, we do not create monsters, because it is living in all of us. We simply give them an opportunity to be nourished and to flourish. People won’t do anything that is not in their interests in some way; sadly, we are not living in a fairy tale.

Reminder

2011-09-25T12:19:00.003+02:00

Remember to put your first name in the LABEL section in order for your contributions to show on the home page list.

Re: DWCLOM?

2011-09-25T11:56:00.000+02:00

The initial though is always perfect. Howpeople interpret is a different matter.

Do we create Leaders or Monsters? The answeris simple. We want leaders. We need leaders. One man is smart but the flock ismindless. There has to be someone above us to reach up to, a deity, a spiritualleader, a president. What our leaders become after they receive our trust isbeyond us. The leader, being only human, becomes corrupted by the entrusted power.After this point the only way to change or stop any reign of madness is withthe same collective power used for its creation.

The Good Shepherd; Or Not?

2011-09-25T11:00:00.001+02:00

Dictators always rise to power through their promises. Theyalways embrace a philosophy that, in their thinking, is going to createa new kind of society. As people always look for a spiritual power, be itreligion or a personal cult (that are not so different after all), they become susceptibleto manipulation when going through tough times. At first everything is great.Things start to derail when it becomes obvious that the promises are at thebottom of the gutter, and the direction is totally different from the promisedparadisiac utopia. If the first generation of dictators of an ideology managesto stay on the bright side, then problems come, when new people come along andstart to interpret the doctrines in their own, radically different way. That’swhat happened in Ella Minnow Pea. That’s what happened in the USSR afterLenin’s death.

I believe the citizens of a totalitarian state are not toblame. As we pointed out in the discussion, we are selfish. When to be selfish,if not at times when we fear for our family and our lives? The drug of power iswhat creates monsters from our leaders, not the ignorance of people. It is kind of a natural thing. Do notthink for more than one moment that we wouldn’t be befuddled with power if we were atthat position. The ultimate solution to avoid this, remains a mystery, but I’msure many will come around with great promises for it…

The Blame Game

2011-09-24T13:14:00.003+02:00

What we create are neither leaders or monsters, not going by their purpose. We create scapegoats, people to whom we delegate all decision-making processes and the responsibilities attached, because not only can we not be bothered to make our own choices, we are fearful of the consequences of our decisions. We want to have others to blame for the status quo.

And there are two distinct personalities willing to fill this position of scapegoat: martyrs, who get off on being condemned by the very public they devote their career to; and the power-crazed, who don't care about public opinion other than as something to manipulate. Both are reminiscent of personality disorders, in my mind: in the face of a demand for someone to push all responsibilities to, we elect sociopaths and masochists to lead us into salvation. No wonder the world is so fucked up.

The Revolution of Resolution - Faisal Abu Ghaben

2011-09-22T11:59:00.016+02:00

Resisting erroneousity and succumbing to duty are corner stones of entitative survival. Societies and individuals lacking the aforementioned mechanisims suffer from rampant forms of moral decay and eventual extinction. In comparison with revolution, which is a state of temporal insanity, a constant, pervasive moral struggle is more likely to provide a more rigid, and comprehensive state of existential solidness.
A harmonious provision of physical and psychological delayed gratification and instant punishment is the key for an existential dome shield in the face of external and internal threats alike. The defamatory and augmented negativity attached to such resolute systems of moral discipline lead to a world excoriated from its sensory-nerve rich skin, left exposed to all sorts of physical and mytaphisical fallibility, a world in which any attempt of self cleansing is percieved as a cancerous activity.

DWCLOM?

2011-09-21T20:13:00.008+02:00

Natural disasters, contagious diseases, economic crises, demoralization, war – a society only needs one of these fatal ingredients to let fear become an established resident amid its members. There is panic, there is helplessness and hopelessness; people in their impotence cry out for someone, anyone who can promise them a better future. They do not look for references or the inevitable price tag. They need something to grab onto, thus, they will follow the first person who seems the loudest and the strongest in the hurricane. They rarely realize that promises made in dire times are seldom kept. That lust for power is a stronger motivator than the honor to bring salvation. They rarely realize that they created a monster.

In Nollop, the inhabitants lived in peace and prosperity. Their traits were unique, the island beautiful, the food plentiful and their Council wise. Then fell letter Z. Before they could realize what was happening, superstition and blind faith have already woven its way around the mind of the Council and into the heart of the people. The once peaceful oligarchy, from its glorious pedestal, fell straight into stifling totalitarianism. In Nollop, fear came after the dictatorship was established.

We, the people, are not good at organizing, at standing up for ourselves or at planning ahead; thus we need a guide. But my question is: Do We Create Leaders Or Monsters?

Welcome

2011-09-08T15:02:00.000+02:00

Welcome to the Critical Thinking and Analysis blog. As you know, if you are in the Journalism minor, you will have blogging responsibilities for three different classes. Make certain you put the correct post in the correct blog. They do not overlap, so what is posted here will only be able to be read here.

IF you have joined by your e-mail moniker and not your real name, you must include your full name in each post in order for me to be able to identify you. If you do not do this, you will lose out on blogging credit.

We will use this blog in a number of different ways. Some weeks I will post a question related to the readings and other times, I will post a puzzle of some type. Each week, the directions will be included in my post as to what you are to do.

In your post here, I want you to reflect on your thinking and how you analyze. When I post a puzzle, brain teaser or anything similar, I do not want you to post the answer. If you do, no one after you will attempt it. Bring the answer to class. If you cannot arrive at the answer, that is fine. Do not post "I am not good at these, so I gave up." What I want you to post is HOW you tried to solve it. Give all of the details of the ways you attempted. Attempting is the key.
As we read the assigned readings, you will find your thinking is expanding. Though you may not ever be good at some of the puzzles, your thinking about problems will start by asking more questions and arriving at better answers.

For consistency, please change the font to Georgia and the size to large. Here is a tip: type your whole post in Word first and save it. Then sign into the blog and click on New Post. Go to Word and hit Control and A at the same time. The whole post will highlight. Copy and Paste it into the post box. If it is not already highlighted, hit Control and A again, then use the drop down box to change the font and the box to the right of it to change the size. Finally, click on PUBLISH POST, not save as draft.

With Each Blog Post

2011-09-08T14:04:00.000+02:00

We are almost at that magic moment when you will be posting your first blog post for this class. There is thing that will make this more meaningful for you. Do not read anyone others' postings until after you write your own. After you write your post and publish it, then go back and read others. However, do not change your own. It is important for you to have a clear idea of your thinking without being influenced by others.

TIP: Most of the time, I write my post in Notepad first. If you type it in the New Post box and something happened to your Internet connect, you may lose part of the writing. Blogger will do an automatic save every so often, but it may not be enough if you are a fast typist. I have found that typing in Microsoft Word and then copy and pasting it here sometimes causes problems. The scroll bar will disappear for anyone reading the blog. Please do not use Word, only Notepad.

One last thing if you are concerned about your grade. When you create a post, you will notice that you can add a label to the white box below the posting box. Please use your name only, but always use your name and make sure you use it the same way each time. Don't use Sally Silly one time and then Silly Sally or S. Sally or S. Silly at other times. This will be you, me, and the world a running visual of all of your postings. When I click on your name at the end of the semester, I will see a list of all of your postings to calculate that portion of the grade. Be aware that every post in these blogs are sent to me via e-mail, so I am reading them there.

In-Text Links - Use as many as you wish. I don't care.