Author Topic: Quotes from work (Read 191998 times)

Jonathon · « **Reply #475 on:** April 02, 2009, 04:30:50 PM »

Personally, I think it's clear in context which turn of the century you're talking about. But what's wrong with "since 2000" if you feel like you're saying "since the 1990s" too much?

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #476 on:** April 02, 2009, 04:35:58 PM »

I feel like there's too many numbers.

rivka · « **Reply #477 on:** April 02, 2009, 05:50:53 PM »

"In the past two decades"?

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #478 on:** April 02, 2009, 07:28:32 PM »

The turn of this century.

Jonathon · « **Reply #479 on:** April 10, 2009, 10:48:54 AM »

Quote

After receiving no governmental protection, Joseph Smith said "[the Constitution's] sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them."

How do you say something after something that didn't happen and kept not happening? Receiving no governmental protection doesn't have an end point in time unless you start receiving no governmental protection, in which case Joseph Smith probably wouldn't have said that. (And anyway, then I'd word it something like "After receiving governmental protection . . .".)

Porter · « **Reply #480 on:** April 10, 2009, 10:57:15 AM »

How about "After asking for and not receiving governmental protection, Joseph Smith said..." or "Disappointed in not receiving governmental protection, Joseph Smith said..."

Jonathon · « **Reply #481 on:** April 10, 2009, 12:39:30 PM »

I think both of those work really well, because it shows the causality and sequence of events more clearly.

Of course, this is a student paper that I'm grading, not a piece that I'm editing. I just wanted to share because it was semantically weird.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #482 on:** April 23, 2009, 12:15:49 PM »

Any ideas?

This is the introduction to my article, which I've re-written about 47 times. I finally feel like it says what I want it to say. But the last sentence is just wonky. What would be a better way to word that? Any other critiques are welcome.

Quote

Over the past 30 years, information and communication technologies have revolutionized the workplace and the home. In the classroom, however, computer technology has not had the same transformative effect (Davidson, 2007). Why hasn’t the use of educational technology kept pace? Researchers have been investigating this issue since the personal computer became widely available in the early 1980s. We attempt here a brief historical overview of the current of thought on the issue of computers in education, highlighting the shifting focus over the years from the ease of access to computer technology to the factors that influence successful integration once that access is attained; such as teacher qualifications, pedagogy, teacher attitudes and beliefs, and external environmental constraints. And yet, even after years of inquiry, it seems that “education … remains rooted in the practices of the past and continues to resist the lessons arising from educational research” (Desjardins & vanOostveen, 2008).

We propose that the underlying issue behind all of these findings is the concept of agentive valuation, the process by which goal-oriented agents willfully react to perceived benefits and threats within their environments. Agentive valuation is driven by motivations similar to those we find in organisms in the natural world, namely risk aversion and perceptive valuation of the surrounding environment. We conclude that the successful integration of technology is a function of its perceived contribution to the goals of the agents within the environment. In the case of education, these agents are teachers, administrators and students. We believe that recognizing this concept of agentive valuation reconciles the many facets of the issue that researchers have previously described into one whole.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #483 on:** April 23, 2009, 09:06:06 PM »

We believe that recognizing this concept of agentive valuation addresses many previously unacknowledged facets of the issue.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #484 on:** April 23, 2009, 09:16:11 PM »

We want to say that the other facets are acknowledged by everyone else but that this concept reconciles them.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #485 on:** April 23, 2009, 10:04:13 PM »

We believe that this concept of agentive valuation addresses many previously unreconciled facets of the issue.

Ajar · « **Reply #486 on:** April 30, 2009, 11:09:32 AM »

"He folded like a cheap suitcase."

"We chased that like a dead herring."

Actual quotes from a co-worker.

Porter · « **Reply #487 on:** April 30, 2009, 11:11:30 AM »

Quote

technology implies belligerence

Huh?

Narnia · « **Reply #488 on:** April 30, 2009, 01:57:36 PM »

Quote

"He folded like a cheap suitcase."

"We chased that like a dead herring."

Actual quotes from a co-worker.

WOW. I think I'm extra giggly today. That made me LOL. Again.

rivka · « **Reply #489 on:** April 30, 2009, 01:58:11 PM »

I need to know. Is the dead herring chasing or being chased? Is it red?

Ajar · « **Reply #490 on:** May 01, 2009, 10:59:04 AM »

Quote

Quote
technology implies belligerence
Huh?

It's a quote from a great short story by Peter Watts. I'm pretty sure the story is available on his website, but I can't remember the title. I'll try to remember to look it up in my anthology tonight and link you.

The dead herring was a theoretical lead being followed that ultimately led nowhere, so I guess it turned out to be both red and dead.

Porter · « **Reply #491 on:** May 01, 2009, 01:51:18 PM »

How does technology imply belligerence?

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #492 on:** May 01, 2009, 09:37:13 PM »

Quote

I need to know. Is the dead herring chasing or being chased? Is it red?

I think it's a chaste herring.

Ajar · « **Reply #493 on:** May 04, 2009, 04:57:19 PM »

I should hope the herring is chaste -- it's dead!

Today, my co-worker coined a new one -- "Don't let me hold the door for you on the way out."

"Don't let the door hit you on the way out" + "Let me hold the door for you," I'm thinking.

Quote

How does technology imply belligerence?

Porter, the story is called 'Ambassador.'

rivka · « **Reply #494 on:** May 04, 2009, 05:21:54 PM »

I've been seeing this one a lot lately, and now it's showing up at work.

Its'.

When you're not sure whether it should be "its" or "it's", the solution is NOT to settle on "its'" as a compromise!!! >.<

Porter · « **Reply #495 on:** May 04, 2009, 08:03:43 PM »

It makes as much sense as the standard rule.

Jonathon · « **Reply #496 on:** May 04, 2009, 08:41:17 PM »

I'd have to say it makes less.

Porter · « **Reply #497 on:** May 04, 2009, 09:27:46 PM »

Less than zero?

Jonathon · « **Reply #498 on:** May 04, 2009, 09:33:48 PM »

The current rules for its and it's do not make zero sense.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #499 on:** May 04, 2009, 09:55:46 PM »

From bubkes to makkes!*

*From next-to-nothing to absolutely nothing.