Narrative Peer Review Review

I had Eli as my partner again for this review which I didn't think was necessarily a bad thing. Since I had him as a partner before I knew a little bit about how he would react and what he was looking for, so when i received less criticisms than the time before I knew that my writing was better. This feeling of confidence I had from the review allowed me to write a better paper with more passion for it instead of thinking that my paper was a piece of trash. Also Eli usually writes better papers than me so if he thinks it's good maybe that reflects a potential for having a higher grade on my memoir paper

Narrative Reading Response - Eating Dinner

Tonight we sat down at our, hard, cold, and unused dining room table to eat together as a family. I wasn't too keen on the family part, but I was almost starving so I was willing to sit down. I decided to not go out to eat wings at Kildare's because my mother was making spaghetti, and I love her spaghetti. I was down in the basement in my room, in the dark, trying not to get a headache from staring at my T.V. for the past four hours. That's when it hit me. The aroma of my moms spaghetti sauce intertwined with garlic bread had swiftly carried itself down the stairs and through my door as if it were some sort of ghostly apparition. It seemed to some how compel my body to walk upstairs in an almost dream like state. There it was in the sink with steam rising off of it. My line of sight was quickly averted to the near by pan of sauce still bubbling and sizzling with every burst. I scooped a decent weight of spaghetti onto my plate and covered it with sauce and sprinkled it with Parmesan cheese and then garnished the plate with garlic bread. It was so delicious but I almost didn't taste it at all as I inhaled the noodles into my mouth. I would have to say, besides twirling the spaghetti on my fork, having the spaghetti smack my lips as I sucked the noodles into my mouth and licking the residual sauce off my lips, was undoubtedly the best part of my meal. Finishing up with garlic bread was an awesome change of pace, changing textures from something so soft to a hard yet subtle crunch. To wash it all down was my favorite drink Snapple Ice Tea. It all was so refreshing, that I hadn't had time to pay attention to anything else besides my food. I couldn't help feel bad for my mother who worked so hard to make, because I didn't make conversation or eye contact for that matter. The overwhelming satisfaction from the meal though was enough to make me forget how bad I felt. I got up from the table, turned and smiled to my mother, and proceeded to return to my hole until she would stomp for dinner next time.

Narative Reading Response

1.) I think the biggest noticeable difference between the narratives and the papers we have been writing is the personal tone they take. In high school all my teachers told us that conceptually and grammatically it is bad to write a paper around yourself. To focus so much on yourself and by using the words "i" and "me", you would be writing a bad paper. The use of imagery is also different. Instead of describing something, you can use the text of flashbacks to make the reader feel something.

2.) In Heroes will Drown I think the purpose of the paper was to inform the audience about the need to accept life for what it is, accept yourself for who you are. I think that personal memoirs and reflections such as this can be interpreted in different ways. I think that its a story of suppression, and being put in your place by the world. This is because of the professor's quote of the most dangerous thing is trying to be a hero. I can infer from this then that the audience is supposed to be those who are just finding themselves, probably older teenagers and younger people in their twenties. people older than that can still relate because anyone who has realized how life will treat you can relate to this coming of rationalization story.

Definition Peer Review

This peer review wasn't as helpful as the last peer review at Irving's just because I think having multiple people comment on your paper can give you more views and insights as to why your paper is bad. Also the out of class time that irving's allowed us to have was beneficial. Someone might pick up on stylistic errors while another contextual errors. I actually thought this week in class was more beneficial than the peer review. I don't know if it was because Josh did a good job at clearing up what the heck the paper was supposed to actually be or if it was because of the way he taught the style and sentence structure. I found it way easier to write a coherent paper that flows with clear and concise sentences after the in class discussion. I think it would be more beneficial during the peer review to have yourself read over the paper now that we are more knowledgeable, during class, and then if we have time left after we finish have a peer or two read it and see if they have anything to add.

Definition Topic

Absolute freedom does not exist within the real world.

Defining Freedom

1.) the OED definition of freedom is to be free from, servitude, inhibition, constraint. To have liberty of action, to act without restraint.

2.) Historically freedom has been a term used when one becomes free of servitude whether that be as a slave or under the reign of tyrannical king. Freedom has been a symbol of hope for those who wish to have the liberty of making decision of their own free will.

3.) Freedom for the purpose of my paper is not only physical freedom but more importantly mental freedom. I will explain how you are never free from constraints on both, in society, nature, and within ones self.

Vanity, Thy Name is Metrosexual Answers

1.) Hackbarth defines metrosexual as a man who seem stereotypically gay except for his sexual orientation. She uses, "a straight man who styles his hair with three different products" and "loves clothes and the very act for shopping for them" as example for what a metrosexual is. The larger argument is that although metrosexuals are more accepting of gay men, and that is a good thing, they are hard to distinguish from actual gay men when women are looking for a date.

2.) Some people think being metrosexual is a way of life, whether or not its living for love or for the love of designer jeans, where Hackbarth thinks that metrosexuality is actually an indicator of how far removed from real life we are. She makes this point known by exposing what caused these men to be metrosexual and what effect that has left on society in general.

3.) I thought that Hackbarth used a comedic and satirical tone throughout the paper describing the metrosexual man.She does this to explain who and what a real man is. This leads me to believe that her audience is female and that like her are fed up with this type of man. They are probably women who also feel down on their luck with love and are sick of meeting the metrosexual man.

Pier Review Review

I found the peer review at Irving’s very helpful, not because of the atmosphere but because of the criticisms. At times the criticisms seemed harsh but that’s only because what was being criticized need more attention and you guys were just trying to help me understand the concepts behind writing a rebuttal. I also liked how Josh commented on it too because my peers can be a little too nice sometimes, but having two to three people read my paper gave me different perspectives on what was wrong.  I guess the biggest problem with my paper was how vague it was with no specific quotes or examples from the book so it killed my ethos by making me look like I was attacking Packham’s character, in turn losing my audience. I was able to fix a lot through my paper by reworking sentence structures to make more, clear and concise points so the paper wasn’t as confusing or awkward to read. The flow of the paper I believe is much better now but I still found the pt-rebuttal-counterpt hard to do because I feel like if I wanted to I could I could have written a paper on just one of his pts yet I had to instead argue against about four to five of his pts. I think because of the review my paper comes across better when read but I’m still not all that confident if I was able to argue well enough my pts.

Nanotechnology... I mean Molecular Manufacturing

1.) The main point of contention between Smalley and Drexler is whether or not nanobots can exist in the physical world and whether or not they can practically manufacture or molecularly assemble macroscopic objects.

2.) Besides their scientific reputations being at stake both are risking the possible future of Nano Technology. Smalley by Drexler's idea of Nano Mechanical Factories with Nano Assemblers and spreading fear of autonomous Nanobots that can communicate and spread like a new disease prevents potential funding for Nanotechnologies and jeopardizes current funding.

3.) Drexler Challenged Smalley's assumption that Nanobots would have "fat" and "sticky" fingers and provided a counter arguement against the need for enzymes and biological chemistry with his theory of mechanosynthesis. Smalley provided reasons as to why Drexler's reasoning was wrong and notes that Drexler has not yet given a well enough explanation for how to create and stabalize molecular bonds between atoms stating that Drexler is living in a world where the laws of chemistry do not apply.

4.) Smalley added to his ethos and tried winning the audience by agreeing with Drexler numerous times while all Drexler had to do was mention he received his Ph.D from MIT, coined the phrase "Nano Technology", and has been a leading authority on such since the 1980's, since which, he has written many books and articles on the subject.

5.) Smalley in his article "Nano Fallacies" actually used the slippery slope fallacy where he proposed the creation of self-replication nanobots would lead to the end of the world as we know it. It is a fallacy because Nanobots are not inevitably the cause of the end of the world, it is only a possibility. Drexler although provides a lengthy and scientific explanation as a rebuttal uses a logical fallacy in doing so. Just because Drexler uses scientific jargon to mask the fact that he is oversimplifying the facts does not mean he is providing a well thought out argument.

6.) I think Drexler provided a righteous smack down on Smalley. For a while both made good points and were toe to toe but as Drexler kept his composure and gave clear and concise points, Smalley rejects the ideas because they are from a scientific field unknown to him and lashes out on Drexler personally than attacking his argument. Drexler's thing about quoting a respected scientist (Smalley) was also really brilliant, for it made Smalley look like a Jerk.