It was too funny to be an English class not in a bad way though! :D

It’s weird because I never felt that the class itself was something of discontent because I always enjoyed going to class. While I’m indifferent on the amount of assignments, I always found myself laughing in class whether due to the small talk, or Andrew’s random humor, or just small comments shared along those of us who sit on the right side of the room. (In respect to the door we use to enter the room)

As a writer, I feel I’ve done a complete 180 since enrolling and participating in this course. Before, I could say that I was a writer who had trouble making all of my ideas flow and connect not only to each other but also to the thesis of the paper. However, now I feel like making the ideas connect or making them concise comes easier, but now finding an idea strong enough to support a whole paper is the primary issue. For instance, with the research paper/proposal, finding a topic that I could enjoy writing about, write a lot about, and find enough research on was the worst. I couldn’t find an interesting topic or just something I could elaborate on and it took perhaps two or three drafts/workshops for me to end up with the topic I decided.

                                            I think this sums it up though...at least my emotion at the time.

But, surprisingly, I still feel stronger as a writer, especially when it comes to self-revisions and the sort. I’m able to find my own mishaps when writing, which originally I was unable to do beforehand. Additionally, I don’t know if this is just me, but I feel as though I’ve become a “slow” writer. By this I mean that it takes me longer to write an essay, paragraph, etc. because I’m now very critical of myself. Almost to the point where I can’t move on because I’m too focused on revising a statement when I’m still on the intro of a 5-10 page paper.

Elitism In The Kitchen

Something I’ve always wanted to bring up is this strange ideology associated with elitism where one play is better because it is more pricy. As a restaurant worker myself, I find it so weird that people think quality of cooking comes from how much one charges. Anyone who actually cooks for an audience knows that the only place where price effects the quality of a dish is when buying the ingredients. The price on the end product more than often is a reflection of the ingredients, however, it’s so insane to me that so many people take this as a measure of taste. Then it leads me to question the mindset of chefs. How humble and/or arrogant are these chefs working in these famous restaurants. Is there this threshold that you reach, enabling you to somehow never make a bad dish again? What provokes these outrageous ideals?

                                         Apparently, this is the result of the elitist thinking.

Then I got to think some more, and it made me wonder, do these arrogant chef’s believe and overprice for the food, or more so because of the ambiance of the area it’s presented in. This topic of ambiance is very essential in fact to the meal, but I’m a firm believer that a much larger portion of price for a meal, should come from the actual meal itself. That is not to say that food is okay when presented in very harsh/unclean conditions, but still there should be a clear division between which makes the price of the meal.

Then, there’s the other kind of price tags which are based on neither of these qualities but instead on the service provided. While I do agree that the price of effort put into pleasing a customer is important, I don’t agree with it being one of the more spoken about portions of the price tag. Moreover, the reason I don’t see it as being on equal with the other factors that determine pricing is that the waiters vary, and the quality of service varies far too much to try to make a standard price out of it. However, these are just my thoughts, feel free to comment your own.

Popular Sources That Aren't So Heard Of

Cultural Framing of Computer/Video Games

The picture more or less describes the overall theme of this source. It is written by a scholar named Kurt Squire. While known for his research on video games, he decided to post on a well-known gaming site in the hope of reaching the player/developers as an audience. Kurt Squire in this video game website shed light on his noticing through research of video games and computers on culture. The main idea of his article is how we as humanity as nothing more than “pawns” to our devices. In a more simplistic description, he is implying that we are so invested into our electronics in this age that we are practically controlled by him. This idea for one thing connects to the claim of immersion that will be discussed earlier in my paper making it an ideal addition, but it displays the impact that video games have on the populace. The site post focuses on the computer and cellular devices as the main pawns since people are often always on one of these two. People go on their phones all the time and use them to decide where and when they can do something. For instance, just think have you never had someone decline an event because their, “phone was dying”, or because there was, “no Wi-Fi”? These people are pawns because their daily choices revolve around the accessibility of their electronic devices.

Video Games Aren’t Actually Bad For Kids

As the title states, the premise is to show that video games are actually not negative on kids. I originally wanted to use this source only to give an idea of the counter argument only to refute it to further prove my argument. However, now that my paper has been written, I decided that this source is flawed for use. For one thing it only focuses on children narrowing the range of research only to children. Moreover, in trying to implement it, I simply realized it didn’t harm my paper, but at the same time, it didn’t help making it negligible.