3 hours. Graaaap.

[shinmishima]

Oh, General Studies - 3 hours of writing about the pros and cons of removing all restrictions on asylum, arguing that innovation in art is almost possible and concluding that Polly Toynbee is a smug Twatty McTwatface. Because we didn't know THAT already

Comments

[lupinlove]

i ahte general studies, all that revision-and for what-to fuck it all up? heeelll yeah it was worth it. not.

aww phonefrights bad. maybe you couldn't answer the phone properly when you weren't wearing your cardboard plane costume? perhaps its like your samsons hair, or heel of achilles..?

[lupinlove]

hate-not ate obviously.

[lupinlove]

hate-not ate obviously.

[shinmishima]

I ate general studies - it tasted bitter. Oh god, does that sound like teenage poetry or what?

[under_control]

my asylum essay was this big one-sided rant against the twin evils of jim davidson and robert kilroy-silk. but hey, it felt good to write.

[under_control]

although i got pissed off afterwards because hannah jones was like, "ooh, i hope an immigrant isn't marking mine...although, HA, as if THEY'D be marking a-level papers" :|

[alohomoron]

She is such an ignorant horse-face.

[shinmishima]

My god - she DOES look like a horse, doesn't she? Almost as much as Tara Palmer-Tompkinson.

[gotmeglued_]

what is entailment anyway?
and what are three principles of evaluation?

i got so bored that the conclusion to my essay about power in media owners ended with "as all superheroes and their nemesises know, power can be used for both good and evil. Those in charge of mass media must make sure it is used for good."

i hope whoever marks mine has a sense of humour :/ and also, doesn't like rupert murdoch very much. although, with hindsight it occurred to me that i think i called him Richard. ah well *watches credibility go down drain*

[shinmishima]

Did you really put that in your conclusion? You're my new hero.

'entail' means to 'necessitate or involve unavoidably'. If only I'd been able to say that in the exam...

[gotmeglued_]

yes i did really put that in my conclusion...sad but true.
i <3 superheroes.

[girl_in_decline]

What was Polly Toynbee trying to argue again? I forgot. I remember her ranting about religion and not mentioning her argument once, but that's it.

I hope someone very left wing was marking mine. I bet I get the constituent leader of the BNP or something...

[shinmishima]

Polly Toynbee was saying the even the nice rabbis on Though for the Day are basically covering up are covering up for their Zionist brothers. She was saying that you don't really need to take other issues into consideration when it comes to violence and religion, and that religion can NEVER EVER be a positive thing. She had ONE PIECE of ANECDOTAL evidence and was trying to tell us that all religious people are misled little cretins who believe in magic, as told to them by big nasty imams and the like.

Not that I got worked up.

[girl_in_decline]

That was it. I remember thinking, 'You absolute twunt.' She annoyed me. I basically insulted her in the questions.

[alohomoron]

What annoyed me most was that she threw in references to Jihad and Islamic/Hindu conflict WHILST ARGUING AGAINST A RELIGIOUS THOUGHT OF THE DAY. The too aren't related! If she'd have cited and example of say, someone saying 'GO OUT AND PERSECUTE, MY ISLAMIC BROTHERS!' then fairdos, she'd have had a point. BUT SHE DIDN'T BECAUSE THERE WERE NONE. I hate 99% of people who write for the Guardian (except for Antony. Who should have my children. And Kevin Maguire!).