Our Presentation format
Setting off long quotations
- (formatting – indent long quotations, 4 lines, need citation (0)
Introduce most material with signal phrases
- Various verbs that begin quotations of phrases
Using signal phrases to mark boundaries
- Signal phrases creates a smooth transition into a quotation
Dropped quotation
- A signal phrase isn’t used.
Quotations with signal phrases
Varying signal phrases examples:
Acknowledges, adds, admits, agrees, argues, asserts, believes, claims, comments, compares, confirm, contends, declares, denies, dispute, emphasize, endorses, grants, illustrates, implies, insists, notes, observes, points out, reasons , refutes, rejects, reports
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Killing Fields Report
The Killing Fields
The majority of the movie took place in Cambodia during the US invasion of Vietnam. The reason Cambodia was also infiltrated by American forces because it is where the North Vietnamese forces were getting their support. It was made in the early 1980’s when the Vietnam War was still fresh in civilians’ minds. The filmmaker of Killing Fields was director Roland Joffe’. He gained enough fame and experience in filming and exploiting political secrets through his British TV show Bill Brands and Play for Today. The story of this film was based on the journals of three different points of views. Even though these men’s journals share a majority of the same story, the stories will be told differently because of the alternate origin of which these men come from. In learning this, I presume that this must be that the reason of making this film is because of our strong curiosity of what’s happening on the other side. The films received strong reviews from Roland’s peers even gaining success at the Academy Awards that year. I feel Roland had inspiration going further than curious through his exploitive drive to reveal the truth of the American mishaps in Cambodia.
The plot was very long and complex. It was based on telling the story of two different characters, whose goal was to not let Cambodia’s pain go in silence. Sydney, a New York Times reporter was just arriving in Cambodia but seemed to having a lot of convenient mishaps on his way in. Pran, Sydney’s Cambodian insider gives him a possible reason why when he exclaims during the recovery of another explosion that the US military missed their mark during a strike. This mishap is Sydney’s whole reasoning throughout the whole movie why Cambodia is such a mess. Many different exciting events happen in Cambodia because of the battling but through it all Pran sticks to Sydney side because he believes in the same cause. President Gerald Ford claim Cambodia is a lost cause and all American officials begin leaving. This creates a dilemma for Pran and Sydney. Sydney wanted to get as much info before leaving but he need Pran's help to do so. Pran became stuck in his home country because his chance to escape disappeared. Sydney went back to the US to flourish in his achievements while Pran hide to find a way to survive in the gulag style prison he was kept in. Sydney did attempt to find ways to retrieve his friend but to no avail until Pran escaped and met him at a Red Cross.
Sydney seems to have the power throughout the whole movie. The relationship between him and Pran was similar to one where a bully controls a friend without the friend knowing it. It was Pran's home country so he had a better understanding of how things and used it to manipulate it for Sydney. I felt very awful that Pran sacrificed his family for Sydney. Sydney was not the only variable in this movie but on a personal level he was. He always wanted to find ways to blame others and not find a reasonable stance on the various situations he came upon.
I did enjoy this movie because it shows viewers a world that most have already forgotten about. The Sydney character annoyed me very much. He always had to make a simple situation seem out of hand. It was as if he was adding the drama to his story before he got to physically putting in paper. The movie seemed to be too long and there were some scenes I think were unnecessary and already pushed a point that has been shown several times. This factor takes away from the entertainment of the movie and makes it so that viewers only want to watch it for a lesson. Although, the plot was about the relationship between Pran and Sydney, I am happy the Cambodian war was used as a background so this movie doesn't go without teaching a thing or two.
I feel this movie connect to this class on various levels. First one is that it takes place in Cambodia and foreign viewers can learn about history in Cambodia. The second connection is the dilemma of spreading the truth to many or save a life. Media has a lot of responsibility with their power. Sydney seemed to ignore the power he had in this movie which gives our class even more. I do want to watch this movie again but not for another 6 months because of entertainment seems to not fit the length of the movie.
The majority of the movie took place in Cambodia during the US invasion of Vietnam. The reason Cambodia was also infiltrated by American forces because it is where the North Vietnamese forces were getting their support. It was made in the early 1980’s when the Vietnam War was still fresh in civilians’ minds. The filmmaker of Killing Fields was director Roland Joffe’. He gained enough fame and experience in filming and exploiting political secrets through his British TV show Bill Brands and Play for Today. The story of this film was based on the journals of three different points of views. Even though these men’s journals share a majority of the same story, the stories will be told differently because of the alternate origin of which these men come from. In learning this, I presume that this must be that the reason of making this film is because of our strong curiosity of what’s happening on the other side. The films received strong reviews from Roland’s peers even gaining success at the Academy Awards that year. I feel Roland had inspiration going further than curious through his exploitive drive to reveal the truth of the American mishaps in Cambodia.
The plot was very long and complex. It was based on telling the story of two different characters, whose goal was to not let Cambodia’s pain go in silence. Sydney, a New York Times reporter was just arriving in Cambodia but seemed to having a lot of convenient mishaps on his way in. Pran, Sydney’s Cambodian insider gives him a possible reason why when he exclaims during the recovery of another explosion that the US military missed their mark during a strike. This mishap is Sydney’s whole reasoning throughout the whole movie why Cambodia is such a mess. Many different exciting events happen in Cambodia because of the battling but through it all Pran sticks to Sydney side because he believes in the same cause. President Gerald Ford claim Cambodia is a lost cause and all American officials begin leaving. This creates a dilemma for Pran and Sydney. Sydney wanted to get as much info before leaving but he need Pran's help to do so. Pran became stuck in his home country because his chance to escape disappeared. Sydney went back to the US to flourish in his achievements while Pran hide to find a way to survive in the gulag style prison he was kept in. Sydney did attempt to find ways to retrieve his friend but to no avail until Pran escaped and met him at a Red Cross.
Sydney seems to have the power throughout the whole movie. The relationship between him and Pran was similar to one where a bully controls a friend without the friend knowing it. It was Pran's home country so he had a better understanding of how things and used it to manipulate it for Sydney. I felt very awful that Pran sacrificed his family for Sydney. Sydney was not the only variable in this movie but on a personal level he was. He always wanted to find ways to blame others and not find a reasonable stance on the various situations he came upon.
I did enjoy this movie because it shows viewers a world that most have already forgotten about. The Sydney character annoyed me very much. He always had to make a simple situation seem out of hand. It was as if he was adding the drama to his story before he got to physically putting in paper. The movie seemed to be too long and there were some scenes I think were unnecessary and already pushed a point that has been shown several times. This factor takes away from the entertainment of the movie and makes it so that viewers only want to watch it for a lesson. Although, the plot was about the relationship between Pran and Sydney, I am happy the Cambodian war was used as a background so this movie doesn't go without teaching a thing or two.
I feel this movie connect to this class on various levels. First one is that it takes place in Cambodia and foreign viewers can learn about history in Cambodia. The second connection is the dilemma of spreading the truth to many or save a life. Media has a lot of responsibility with their power. Sydney seemed to ignore the power he had in this movie which gives our class even more. I do want to watch this movie again but not for another 6 months because of entertainment seems to not fit the length of the movie.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
12 Questions
1. What city are you from?
2. What is your town known for?
3. How many members are in your family?
4. What is dream job from going to college?
5. What is your favorite sport?
6. Who would you like to meet?
7. What do you consider to be the highest leadership position you’ve served?
8. How often do you travel?
9. Do you keep athletically active?
10. What is the most advanced recipe you can make?
11. What film do you find the most entertaining?
12. What moral trait do you think is universally important for everyone to learn?
2. What is your town known for?
3. How many members are in your family?
4. What is dream job from going to college?
5. What is your favorite sport?
6. Who would you like to meet?
7. What do you consider to be the highest leadership position you’ve served?
8. How often do you travel?
9. Do you keep athletically active?
10. What is the most advanced recipe you can make?
11. What film do you find the most entertaining?
12. What moral trait do you think is universally important for everyone to learn?
Report on “Crash Course on American Culture”
Report on “Crash Course on American Culture”
This was a fun and interesting article to read. Jun-Kai Teoh puts a lot of effort and enthusiasm into his writings. With a topic so broad Jun-Kai took a situation he believes to be unique to the United States and find ways to explain American culture.
I’ve actually been the center of an article of his before. Last year, I was in charge of organizing Japan Night as President of JP Network, a Japanese-American association, and the University Chronicle was represented by Jun-Kai Teoh. I’ve known this Chronicle writer to place hard work into his research. During the weeks coming up to Japan Night, my schedule was very hectic but this writer wanted to get a 1st person source to base the article of Japan Night. He made sure to find a way for the interview to happen either through leaving voicemail, e-mails and even trying to find me in person. Eventually, I had some time to do the interview after the actual Japan Night took place.
The article did a fantastic job getting across a background of where Jun-Kai is coming for as a University Chronicle. Many students dismiss the Chronicle a bias or non-legit source for opinions and news but not many have the background information that Jun Kai enlightened readers with in this article. It’s easy to nitpick work when one doesn’t where writer is coming from. The basic details that are given share a clear description of what the duties of an editor pertain in only a few sentences.
One can tell when reading the article that this is a personal story being contributed since it is something that Jun-Kai provides emotions of embarrassment. The example of American culture offers readers a slight moment of relaxation because the mentioning of a strip bar in narration context lets the reader know that they will not be trapped in a far too serious for their own good. What is problematic about this personal story is that the writer made it seem too naughty to give any real details to comprehend of what the author is trying to get through. A night at Sugar Daddy’s sounds almost as crazy as everyone’s favorite comedy of 2009 Hangover but we can’t enjoy this because the content.
Jun-Kai is a favorite editor of mine at the University Chronicle because of his enjoyment of his position. He puts personal life on the line for his position. It’s appreciated that there is a writer that doesn’t shove their no researched opinion in everyone’s face and actually looks forward to what they of sharing the wealth of enjoyment.
Source:
Teoh, Jun-Kai. "The Chronicle; A Crash Course on American Culture." University Chornicle 08FEB2010: 6. Print.
This was a fun and interesting article to read. Jun-Kai Teoh puts a lot of effort and enthusiasm into his writings. With a topic so broad Jun-Kai took a situation he believes to be unique to the United States and find ways to explain American culture.
I’ve actually been the center of an article of his before. Last year, I was in charge of organizing Japan Night as President of JP Network, a Japanese-American association, and the University Chronicle was represented by Jun-Kai Teoh. I’ve known this Chronicle writer to place hard work into his research. During the weeks coming up to Japan Night, my schedule was very hectic but this writer wanted to get a 1st person source to base the article of Japan Night. He made sure to find a way for the interview to happen either through leaving voicemail, e-mails and even trying to find me in person. Eventually, I had some time to do the interview after the actual Japan Night took place.
The article did a fantastic job getting across a background of where Jun-Kai is coming for as a University Chronicle. Many students dismiss the Chronicle a bias or non-legit source for opinions and news but not many have the background information that Jun Kai enlightened readers with in this article. It’s easy to nitpick work when one doesn’t where writer is coming from. The basic details that are given share a clear description of what the duties of an editor pertain in only a few sentences.
One can tell when reading the article that this is a personal story being contributed since it is something that Jun-Kai provides emotions of embarrassment. The example of American culture offers readers a slight moment of relaxation because the mentioning of a strip bar in narration context lets the reader know that they will not be trapped in a far too serious for their own good. What is problematic about this personal story is that the writer made it seem too naughty to give any real details to comprehend of what the author is trying to get through. A night at Sugar Daddy’s sounds almost as crazy as everyone’s favorite comedy of 2009 Hangover but we can’t enjoy this because the content.
Jun-Kai is a favorite editor of mine at the University Chronicle because of his enjoyment of his position. He puts personal life on the line for his position. It’s appreciated that there is a writer that doesn’t shove their no researched opinion in everyone’s face and actually looks forward to what they of sharing the wealth of enjoyment.
Source:
Teoh, Jun-Kai. "The Chronicle; A Crash Course on American Culture." University Chornicle 08FEB2010: 6. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
