Jump to content

TJBARU

Members
  • Content count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Unknown

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Exams
    Nov 2010
  • Country
    New Zealand
  1. Kia ora, Extended essays're due soon, and I'm just fixing up the little problems in mine. One problem I have is with an interview I did with a history lecturer at a local uni. The interview was long (hr and a half), and the language was EXTREMELY colloquial. It wasn't really an itnerview, more a conversation tbh. The question: Do I need to write it out in full or can I summarise (and say in a header that I'm doing so) Cheers, T
  2. No, because the voters would have voted for the dumping of those intital democratic principals. Those people would be supporting restricting their own freedom, but if they want to, then why would you not let them? You can't have a watered down democracy - because then it becomes an oligarchy. It must be all or nothing.
  3. Collected Essays - George Orwell Dianetics - the modern science of mental health - L Ron Hubbard Qu'ran, Bible, other religious texts. If this is a man - primo levi (autobiography, but good)
  4. Recently, for History, we had to write an essay evaluating the role of Churchill, Stalin and Truman in causing the "Cold War". There was no min. or max. word count or even an indication of any sort. Some wrote (and some havent done theirs yet, several days after due grr) 1500 words, and some wrote around 3500. One guy wrote 4800. In order to evaluate these leaders role in causing the conflict, taking note of the effect of their personalities, how many words should I write so as to include all relevant details but exclude any "flannel". I wrote 3900, or thereabouts and feel that whilst some was "flannel", most was relevant and on topic. Others who have written a similar essay - how many words did you write and was much of this irrelevant?
  5. It depends. Some think money can buy love. So if you have money then you can get love too. Some think that with love, you don't need money. So you'd marry for love. Both of these are, imho, wrong. Love can never eradicate human desire/greed, and I don't think, imho again, that money can create love. So it's about a balance. But interestingly... Should men marry for love or money?
  6. Hey all, I'm finding this text quite difficult and wondered if anyone else had read it, and had some comments/help? The hardest part is trying to make sense of it when it flutters from time period to time period? Any notes or ideas? Especially on language
  7. For me, it's probably English - but that's not cause it's a hard subject or I'm bad at it, I just find it difficult to put up with a lot of the texts we have to read and all the stuff about language and the like. It's a bit wishy-washy and not very applicable... Or Economics, because we can't even use a calculator. That sucks, especially when you can't do times tables....
  8. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. - Chinese Proverb If we give food aid to a country where there a state of famine, once that food is gone, the benefit is gone. We'd be smarter to encourage trade, like South Africa has done with Lesotho. Lesotho exports it's excess water, creating wealth, allowing them to buy/produce more food. Also, by trading with impoverished countries, not only do we increase their standard of living, but we also reap some benefit ourselves, as S.A has done in this example. OK, clearly we cant like get rid of aid entirely, or all at once, but by increasing trade, we reduce the dependence on our own money.
  9. Take, for example, an impoverished African nation, like Lesotho. How is it best to 'help' them - via trade or aid?
  10. Kia Ora, Has anyone here read Potiki by Patrica Grace, or studied it for IB? Any study notes or anything like that? Cheers
  11. I'm in no way against the U.S holding terrorism suspects for a reasonable period of time, provided they are given access to 'fundamental rights', such as their general human rights, language support e.t.c., and that they are treated with the respect that a U.S citizen would be accorded in a civillian prison - ie: not tortured in an attempt to gain 'evidence'. The maj. of the suspects have been held beyond a period of time reasonable for a criminal trial, have been treated with disdain and abuse and have had little or no chance to their fundamental rights, eg: attorney or translator. So I'm for shutting G.B down. But, I don't think that releasing the prisoners immediately after closing the prison is a 'good' solution (for obvious reasons - they are suspects of terrorism) , nor is moving them to a civillian supermax prison (the environment is unsuitable).
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.